volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@knittingknots2 I’d say that reads his reaction backwards:

It’s not that it bothers him the most, but rather that he thinks he can use the accusation against Democrats the most effectively by turning it into a symbol of hypocrisy.

He’s latching onto it not out of annoyance but happily and strategically.

@ThatCrazyDude well in the past it meant a philosophical approach focused on liberty instead of control, allowing people to just be rather than trying to engineer and direct society.

However, the meaning of the word has evolved over time to the point where it’s kind of lost all meaning. I advise people not to use it anymore because it just no longer has a well-defined meaning.

@CenDemTech sounds like a misunderstanding of the free market.

I’d highlight that the description still talks about willingness to pay, so the core value of providing goods and services at prices that consumers find acceptable is still right there.

@gwagner in this ACAB era I’m not sure she should be emphasizing that she’s one of them.

@realcaseyrollins Well it’s really complicated because there are so many factors going into it.

Just to name one thing, people are living longer now than they lived 100 years ago, and the longer you live the more opportunity you have to develop cancer.

Or here’s a different thought: what if we discover that cancer is caused by some lifestyle change that people won’t be willing to give up anyway? What if it’s discovered that cancer is caused by electricity? Even if we figure that out, we won’t be able to get rid of cancer because people would not be willing to make that trade.

I could go on and on, but in the end it’s not certain that we would even be able to figure out such a cause, plus even if we manage to figure out such a cause, it’s not certain that we would be able to figure out a solution.

It all highlights how uncertain it is that it would be possible to solve cancer at all.

@dougiec3 You’re falling for so much misreporting about the rulings this term. In ruling after ruling the Supreme Court restrained power, it didn’t bestow absolute power. It did the exact opposite.

From ruling that presidents can’t have such prosecutorial discretion through ruling that presidents really do need to respect the limitations in law passed by Congress, the story of what this court has done this term is the opposite of what so many on social media keep repeating.

That’s a real shame if we want informed voters.

@realcaseyrollins

I would approach it in the other direction: It’s not whether it is unsolvable but whether it is solvable.

Like I said above, there is serious downside risk to attempting the project and that needs to be taken into account. If it can’t be shown that it is actually solvable, realistically solvable, then that downside risk needs to be factored in.

To build on what I said above, the proposal that we put a man on the moon was based on physics that we understood. We could prove that it was possible technically. We knew that it was definitely solvable.

It’s not the same for cancer, though. We don’t know that it is solvable.

@jupiter_rowland I get it.

One reason I wanted to speak out here is specifically to counter those people lecturing.

I know they have good intentions, but they might be doing more harm than good because they don’t see the bigger picture.

@realcaseyrollins The problem with the cancer moonshot is that there’s a good chance it’s just not possible.

The space race was an engineering problem that was pretty well-understood. Sure there would be new developments needed along the way, but the physics of launching into space had been pretty settled.

It’s not the same for cancer, though. There is still so much unknown about how it actually works in bodies, and a good chance that it will be impossible to eliminate.

In the end there is a real possibility that should the cancer moonshot be engaged and then fail it will lead to generations of people being discouraged. It can honestly do harm, not simply be neutral.

Those downsides need to be taken into account.

@jupiter_rowland well, what I’m saying is it’s one of those cases of a false choice.

The choice is NOT a binary of descriptions vs no descriptions. The no images at all choice looms really large.

Nobody profits if there are no pictures.

So the good intention to help some ends up with the outcome of helping nobody.

It’s an unintended consequence.

@Nonilex this kind of thing reminds me of the Futurama episode where the captain is relieved of command due to failure to prevent mutiny.

Outfits like CREW spend their days promoting this stuff about bias and then insist that the justice must step down due to the appearance that they themselves promoted?

It’s absurd.

@Bellison22 keep in mind that they were calling Harris a DEI hire based on Biden’s own words.

Biden needs to be held accountable for stuff like that. He botched so many things.

@ArneBab of course Republicans will try, that’s just how this game is played.

And I’d also emphasize that if Republicans are successful, then Democrats need to bear responsibility for botching things so badly.

Seriously, it’s amazing that Biden has screwed up so badly over the years, fumbling issue after issue that should have been easy home runs. That’s part of why it’s so great that he got dumped. It’s accountability for his own unforced errors.

Now we just need Democrats to coalesce around someone who’s actually competent.

That any of this matters, that Trump even has a chance of winning, reflects how badly Democrats have botched all of this, so they’ll reap what they sow.

@kbsez folks being told that the Chevron ruling was a win for corporate interests need to step back for a second and ask why it was called Chevron in the first place.

The Chevron case was a win for Chevron the petroleum corporation. By reversing the rule the Supreme Court TOOK AWAY that win for corporate interests.

Chevron allowed presidents to offer favors to corporations… like Chevron. SCOTUS said no, that’s not OK.

@foodnpolitics no, you have the SCOTUS ruling backwards.

What SCOTUS said was that the president does NOT have king-like powers to prosecute legal activity. The president is not free to haul people into court with such wide discretion.

So many people are missing that the case was about prosecutorial procedure, not legal liability.

And so it mainly addressed the power of the prosecutor, putting limits on what the president can do with his power.

@mastodonmigration

@martlund the one has nothing to do with the other.

The entire court sits for appeals from the lower courts, so number of justices doesn’t need to match in our current system.

@gearhead that’s not what they decided, though.

If you read the ruling, it specifically talks about presidents being subject to criminal prosecution.

What it said was that the administration may not engage in illegal prosecution, which may be pretty important given Harris’s history. She seems awfully eager to use her power inappropriately, both as AG and during her time in the Senate.