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
The dark side of #fediverse
The sad thing is that I personally probably align well with that community, and the only reason I even learned about the block was that I tried to ...
@RunRichRun well, sadly it's not so much loyalty to Trump but rather loyalty to this alternative reality that conservative commentators spent months building up around the trial.
If you believed all of the false claims they've made about the trial then you'd say the same, that it's ridiculous to respect the outcome.
They're wrong, and that's a shame. But yet again, it's a call for us to find some way to restore faith in legit reporting instead of letting this nonsense fill the vacuum.
@iuculano the Supreme Court isn't a person. It doesn't have the capacity to be upset. And it does us no good to act like it is.
Different justices have very different personal opinions, different backgrounds, philosophies, approaches to life.
That diversity is a good thing. We should celebrate it and encourage it, not let it get lost in oversimplification.
@rameshgupta right, you keep getting lost in your abstractions, but they're not at all realistic.
Heck, just look at this comment. the reason for any court to exist is to administer justice? That's pretty weird considering the Supreme Court's lack of authority to administer, which is left to an entirely different branch of government.
Your theories here just don't match reality.
@JBShakerman you have it backwards: the justices are helpless by design.
All the justices can do is write opinions. They're helpless to enforce or otherwise enact their opinions.
This was a critical part of the separation of powers in the US system: unelected, unaccountable justices were intentionally left helpless and reliant on others to actually give force to their opinions.
@realcaseyrollins does that mean no, you don't have anything solid to base your perspective on?
@Captain_Jack_Sparrow
@darulharb The structure of the NY law takes care of that criticism, though.
The law is written such that they just need to find nefarious intent. The specifics of the intent don't matter to the law any more than the motivation of a thief matters beyond just wanting to steal things.
@JBShakerman do you want an independent judiciary or not?
That's what it really comes down to.
I believe judicial independence is vital to protecting the free society, so I'm willing to accept a court that cannot be policed by the other branches, the branches that they will occasionally be asked to rule against.
You can repeat the slogan that the court cannot be above the law in a free society, and it sounds nice, but pragmatically, when the rubber meets the road, it really must be.
@FantasticalEconomics the problem is that both major parties believe they're doing exactly this and the other one is doing that.
And they both have some legs to stand on, because they're both a bit awful.
@JBShakerman no, because it's fundamentally saying that there can be no such law, no matter how good you write it.
If we value an independent court then we cannot have it depend on those laws. Any such law violates that firewall, no matter how it's written.
@lawprofblawg I imagine Trump figured he'd be better able to leverage a trial for political means than a plea bargain.
@juergen_hubert this highlights a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good:
We all lose out when people don't post good content because they can't make it perfect. Better to have an image without alt text than to have no image at all.
As for AI, maybe it should be seen as running on the reader's end and not the publisher?
@Xanatos Bluesky promises all that and more, though.
Bluesky lets you change servers but also lets you pick and choose functionality from other providers even in combination with whatever server.
And it makes it much more functional to change servers as you kind of own your account beyond the server.
@juergen_hubert you're missing that originalism applies to contemporaneous laws as well.
For example, originalism requires the enforcement of the 14th Amendment, and that's certainly not a product of slaveholders!
Originalism is about strict interpretation of laws, including those promoting civil rights. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
@MikeImBack the problem is that half the country was told this alternative story of a trial that was horribly unfair, and we can't just ignore that.
The alternative story is so widespread that it needs to be addressed somehow. Otherwise, if nothing else, that's how Trump gets reelected.
Trump case appeal plans; prospects
@maeve to be clear, different experts will believe different things, so for an issue like this one can find experts to support just about whatever conclusion they want to hear.
Plenty of experts see room for a successful appeal, even if I'm personally on the skeptical side.
@BohemianPeasant well that's not true, and we can see that even in recent opinions that have corrected the errors in previous opinions.
And that's not even getting into the error correction that happens through lower courts.
@JBShakerman well right, because in order to have judicial independence we have to prevent the other branches from having power over the courts.
There's a very good reason that justices must call out such subpoenas as invalid.
Should the court come under the control over other branches it would create a conflict of interests that strikes at the heart of the federal design.
@Itchy I don't know where you're hearing that, but if you pay attention to the Supreme Court docket and Alito's own writings, it really debunks claims like that.
YES women and unions get through the door. Alito personally rules for them.
These sensational claims painting a dystopian picture are just not realistic, but they do promote special interests.
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:
