volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
@jonburr there are a couple of different accusations involved, but one is exactly the opposite, that Trump contributed too much of his money, beyond federal limits, to the campaign for election purposes.
On that count he's being charged with violating campaign finance laws specifically because it was a contribution of his money over the limit.
@NewsDesk @trump-legal-issues-ElectionCentral
@farbel exactly.
Not a criminalization. They're asked to move along.
@farbel kind of, but in any case, that's exactly why SCOTUS is reviewing this case, because the 9th Circuit is probably wrong.
So we can see this in the application for cert:
"Grants Pass enforces these ordinances through civil citations, not through criminal fines or jail terms."
@Koochulainn it means the money is not given in exchange for anything, the recipient of the money has done nothing in exchange for the benefit.
@brainwane it's like saying, instead of regulating healthcare to make sure it's available to more people who need it, patients can simply pay more to get doctors to see them.
It's a foolish position to take.
@BobClinton that's not how the US government works, though.
SCOTUS has only the power to issue opinions. It has no power to dictate, or enforce, or control the police, or write legislation. Those are different branches of government.
SCOTUS won't make doing away with democracy legal because it literally can't do that even if it wanted to.
Whoever is telling you this stuff is relying on not knowing what the different branches of government do.
SCOTUS, Grant's Pass criminalization of sleeping outside
@maeve the ordinance in question is emphatically not about criminal sanctions, though.
Those claims about the case are just wrong.
@KeithDJohnson no, that's factually not at all what's going on in the SCOTUS case.
In fact, the ordinance that's before the Court right now is emphatically not about putting anyone in prison.
So no, SCOTUS is not making homelessness illegal. All of these claims being repeated are completely misinformative.
@marius_gs I mean, it probably is, though.
@CosmicTraveler If the court is illegitimate then expanding it is pointless. It just makes for a court that remains illegitimate, but now takes more resources and time and provides more chaos in arriving at illegitimate results.
But no, it's not illegitimate. Many people just forget that it's not meant to be a legislative body.
When it points out that laws are badly written, that means we need to stop reelecting bad lawmakers.
@touaregtweet well, it more reflects failure of Biden's administration to prosecute Trump properly.
We can't let him off the hook for that.
@freemo you're leaning heavily into a strawman argument here, a very common one.
A vote is an expression of a stance. What you're proposing is that we should take various stances and just funnel them all into one stance that will in many cases be completely opposite to the voters' own positions.
For example, I won't vote for either Biden or Trump because I believe both parties need to nominate better candidates. They must if they want my vote. So many others share my position.
We hope that the parties, particularly the losing party, will take that position to heart in the future.
BUT as different people will frame our position as support for either candidate, instead of rejection for both, is to get our position exactly backwards AND miss the call to change, to put forward a better nominee.
The strawman argument of voting for something instead of rejection substitutes what we actually believe for something completely backwards of what we believe, missing the call for a solution in the process.
@jonburr no.
It's like, if you offer an illegal bribe to someone, that money wasn't stolen.
Similar thing here.
@farbel no, it's emphasized that there is no proposed punishment at all in this ordinance.
That's so important here.
Emphatically, the ordinance provides that officials will provide help and ask the people to move along.
@cra1g if you're talking about the reference to the CLI brief, firstly I wouldn't say that's a mainstream expression as it was submitted as a technical analysis on behalf of a legal institution, and secondly, the brief was absolutely couched in terms of the state's position.
So it wasn't against states' rights but emphasizing them.
@Koochulainn no, not at all.
@fogmount believe it or not, congressional reporters often relay superficial versions of events that are (hopefully) oversimplified for the sake of what they think their readers want.
When a reporter skips the complexities of a rule voted on by the Rules Committee, for example, they're missing a complicated step in House procedure, but without including that step their readers won't have a full picture of what just happened.
Here's something real for you to check out if you'd like. Go through the list of votes on April 20th. I heard no mainstream reporter actually report that process, and yet the reality was just that complicated.
@icedquinn I'd rephrase that:
They're supposed to annoy people AND they don't work :)
I've seen so many cases where folks who would normally be on board with the cause tune them out at best or flat out turn and work against the cause after feeling harassed.
The problem is that it's not a good strategy in the first place. Annoying the people you need buy-in from is always going to be a pretty questionable tact.
@BohemianPeasant but they're not criminalizing homelessness in this case.
All of the people trying to criticize the case on that basis are repeating rhetoric that just doesn't apply, so it doesn't move the ball.
@RonaldTooTall
@farbel no, the ordinance before the court expressly provides no such punishment.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
