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
@rameshgupta so, I'm citing the founding documents that establish the Court in the first place.
What are you citing?
I'm putting on the table the rule that caused the court to be in the first place.
You're handwaving and namecalling.
You see how I feel I have the stronger case?
@realcaseyrollins can you prove your case with anything other than appeals to deep down knowledge?
@doctorambient what they're missing is that when it comes to #voting and other political issues, appearances matter.
You can say all day (as the article mentions) that there are hidden protections in place, but that's little comfort to those questioning it.
Had we more positive confirmations of security we wouldn't have so many people questioning it.
"Don't worry about it" is not sufficient answer for the general public.
@benroyce keep in mind that one of the major features of a distributed network like this, in fact one of the features that distinguish it from those other platforms, is that nobody has authority over it, not even Gargron.
If Gargron could address your concern on his own, well, that defeats the whole purpose.
But no, the drama over meta is overblown.
My main (and far out) hope with regard to the #Trump verdict is that it causes at least some people to notice that he and the media ecosystem around him have been lying to them about the trial this whole time.
For months they've been spouting that this is a case without merit, without evidence, without even charges. It's a slam dunk: OF COURSE he'll be let off.
Well, the guilty verdict is going to cause at least some people to wonder what went wrong, look into it, and notice they were told so wrong.
Maybe Trump will appeal and have the charges reversed. BUT he'd never be able to unring the bell of people noticing that he (and media figures) mislead them so, well, hugely.
@realcaseyrollins one thing that so many Trump supporters overlook is that Trump has a ceiling where other voters will refuse to vote for him under any circumstances.
They look at trend lines but don't notice that ceiling. At some point the pool of potential Trump voters will be exhausted and his support can grow no higher.
I'd say that applies here. I don't think many more will vote for him over this, because folks who are open to the possibility had already bought into it.
@realcaseyrollins Trump declined to take the stand and defend himself...
@Captain_Jack_Sparrow
@hughrbeyer but this is it exactly: Congress has impeachment authority against individual justices, not against the Court as a whole.
It has power to impeach INSTEAD OF oversight over the Court.
If it wants to impeach Alito it can, and that is the proper remedy, responding to misbehavior while maintaining the independence of the other co-equal branch.
@rameshgupta the foundational design of the Supreme Court is to be one of the three branches of the federal government.
It is established and operates as one of three branches, able to operate independently of the other two so that it can provide a check on the other two.
Nothing in that fundamental order says the slightest thing about those groups that you don't like.
So yes, judicial independence is fundamental. It exists as an independent branch.
@bronakins I mean, yes.
The structural importance of maintaining judicial independence is pretty much the most fundamental priority the Court has.
@rameshgupta Exactly what law do you think they're violating and being excused from?
@iuculano seems the opposite to me: he trusts that people would be smart enough to ignore these weak claims against him.
@ChemicalEyeGuy ok, I thought I was clear in what I was asking, but sure, what observations?
That's what I was asking.
@hughrbeyer keep in mind that the Supreme Court is constitutionally separated from congressionally established lower courts.
I think you're confusing those two different parts of the third branch.
@qotca@mastodon.social
@waysideollie except that he probably had enough basic understanding to know that the flag means things that you seem unaware of--he knew enough to know of flag meanings that in no way warranted removal.
Just because YOU don't know, and so want to project your limited understanding onto his life, doesn't mean he needs to act as if he had sunk to your level.
@jackiegardina you feel trolled by recognition of modern ideas about women's independence from their husbands?
Tricky, that one.
@waysideollie do you realize that upside-down flags have long established other meanings that have nothing to do with current events?
Sounds like you're assuming Alito should have the same level of ignorance that you're projecting here.
Turns out he might be much more informed about flag meanings.
@qotca@mastodon.social sure, asking tough questions for the voters they're trying to score political points with.
But hopefully plenty of these congresspeople realize that this is not only nonsense, but nonsense that would threaten the independence of the judiciary, if they were serious.
And if voters knew their civics well enough to realize just what clowns they're being with these stunts.
@hughrbeyer
@ariegoldshlager@mstdn.social it's almost like these days we recognize that wives have lives separate from their husbands...
You're missing that some people are happy to see impropriety in the weirdest places, especially when it supports their prejudices.
That's why the key is to AVOID the appearance, because it can't be eliminated.
Can't stop nutjobs with axes to grind from imagining impropriety, so might as well ignore them.
And yeah, these nutty reactions to Alito have been pretty, well, nutty.
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:
