volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@LouisIngenthron you mean what are the better routes?

Instead of focusing on the language, point out how stupid what he actually said was, to put it simply.

@JohnBarentine I think it's the opposite, the nature of the constellation makes the satellites less of a target sense blowing one up is not nearly as productive when there's a whole grid of them.

@radiojammor

And the thing is, heck, if you really want to tax AI because it's bad or whatever, fine, at least put the revenues in the general fund. It's a bonus to help fund government.

I'm not really for that, but it's less bad.

It's the direct connection between this one unreliable funding source and this one important program that's exponentially more problematic.

Governments do this stuff all the time, and it causes trouble.

One more point to consider: if government is funded by the bad thing, it causes a conflict of interests where government gets more money the more the bad thing is done.

@cjammet

@LouisIngenthron again, the problem is that giving them ammunition helps their cause when there are better routes that would actually hamper their cause.

@SocialJusticeHeals yep.

It's not a dichotomy. Hopefully the lack of the vote will push parties to run better candidates in the future.

So many who see it as just Trump vs Biden are missing the larger picture.

@jupiter_rowland

Yeah, but IMO the correct position is that some people will have a problem with it, but that's between them and the software they use to access the platform.

I'd say one should both be unapologetic and also aware that long posts aren't for some readers.

A writer isn't forcing long posts on anyone, so it's not the responsibility of the writer to serve that audience.

@javi but, do you recognize that your users might want to engage with folks over there?

(To be sure, it's your right to decide as an instance not to allow it, but I always want to make sure actual end users are part of the decision when so often they're notably absent.)

@mattgrayyes that's not quite the issue, though.

It's not so much about data being handled in a foreign country as it's about China specifically publishing into the US.

(Let me emphasize that I'm very much against the ban.)

You can see that everywhere from the rhetoric of ardent promoters of the legislation through the wording of the legislation itself.

That take really misunderstands the motivation behind the ban.

@misty

@mral

That's not what happened, though. That's the opposite of what happened.

The SCOTUS hasn't effectively invalidated the 14th Amendment, but rather it expressly reaffirmed it.

Their ruling in Trump v Anderson stressed over and over that the 14th Amendment was not only valid but emphatically part of the operation of the US government.

Anyway, the law you propose would interfere with democracy, preventing people from voting for candidates as they see fit.

@uspolitics

@MollyNYC

You seem to be overlooking the factor that there are voters involved in voting.

That's kind of a big deal.

@rchusid

@Free_Press wow, that's a misleading news report.

No, Republicans didn't pull a motion to subpoena Kushner. The motion simply failed to garner support in the meeting.

And the news report saying there has been no evidence stands in contrast with hearing after hearing presenting evidence.

One can say the evidence isn't strong, fine, but to say it doesn't exist is simply false.

@Free_Press other words are needed: many are holding out for MORE aid and more effective supplies than we've seen so far.

@HistoPol Power hungry?

Thomas often issues opinions that give up power!

When you consider his actual work on the Court instead of all of this sensationalized drama, it paints a much different picture.

@paninid @lovelylovely

@iuculano and yet conservative outlets were playing results from the hearings that really supported their causes.

So it really comes down to who you're listening to, who is editing the claims that show up in your echo chamber.

@BohemianPeasant I mean, sometimes the cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes testimony is simply not particularly convincing.

We don't really need to go digging deeper to find conspiracy theories or whatever. Sometimes a person makes a claim that just sounds wrong, and they aren't able to back up the accusations they're making.

@bespacific

@tokensane

If you're talking about the relationship between the US federal government and US states, that raises very different complications.

But this is not about what is okay or not okay. It's about what is.

A government responsive to its people will have policies that restrict what government employees can do.

@W_Lucht

@Luis_Fierro it doesn't, though. Rules against racial profiling and harassment are not affected by the Court's ruling.

This sounds like a politician trying to score political points through trumped up claims.

@tokensane all of them. They all play roles in the system, they all do work even if different types of work.

It's about power and control, but it's also about governments striving to be responsive to the populations, even if they miss the mark, since that's generally the source of notions of right and wrong in the governmental context.

When low level workers use their positions to take ideological stands that go against the ideology adopted by a responsive government as a whole, it's not surprising that there would be pushback from the top.

So yep, you could say it's about power and control, to use Machiavellian language, but it's hard to see how it could go any other way in a governmental institution.

@W_Lucht