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
@realcaseyrollins
... I mean they have?
@hoare_spitall I mean, personal motivation is the name of the game, and for good reason.
We WANT personal investment by our politicians, as that keeps them engaged and incentivized to satisfy their constituents as they set about governing.
@samohTmaS they wouldn't be off the court, though. That's not the rules of how the US government functions.
And for good reason, this is part of having an independent judiciary.
We require impeachment to take someone off the court because we don't want presidents to be able to threaten justices to get their way. That's part of protecting against a president going way overboard and threatening the country.
It requires impeachment to take a Justice off the court. It requires that our elected representatives agree that the justice should no longer serve.
We don't leave that decision up to a president to dictate.
@dougiec3 As usual, Vox is telling a story but offering slanted takeaways.
Very often Vox has this habit of mixing opinion and reporting that is altogether a bit misleading.
Same here: according to the story, no, SCOTUS isn't being asked to disenfranchise voters as the headline and some lines in the story say. That's not how the system works.
Rather, the state law didn't offer franchise in the first place, so it's up to the state, not the Court.
It wouldn't change anything, though. Short of impeachment and removal of those justices the Court would remain the same.
volkris
boosted
Throwing off the political polls by making hundreds of fake identities and claiming that I will vote for whichever candidate wears the largest hat.
I'd say GT shouldn't be attempting to protect students from content in the first place. It should empower those adults to control their own lives and experiences as they engage with the real world.
Give them tools to shape their experiences of the world and then stand aside.
But sure, in reality there are legal issues that might block that approach.
In that case GT should not start an instance for its students.
It should simply say, We're sorry, but there's no good way to provide social media infrastructure for you, students, so we won't be going that direction.
IF we elect good reps they will impeach presidents who botch the DOJ. That's part of being a good rep.
It's a single layer.
Alternatively we have an independent law enforcement organization untethered from that oversight system, cops unsupervised, which is pretty dangerous.
But we get the government we vote for, largely by electing good reps and declining to reempower bad ones.
@adrianmorales problem is, Meta is likely over here on Fediverse vacuuming up content all they want.
Over here they don't have to ask for consent in the first place. We're broadcasting content for any to use.
@CynicusRex no, why deprive others of value?
It would be a net loss for society.
@GrahamDowns this is the right approach, empowering users to craft their own experiences by using tools like blocking and muting.
I wish that was more of a focus of development around here.
@Chrisblue we need to be clear that the Supreme Court didn't block expanded protections as this says.
Instead, it declined to get involved as the cases worked their way through lower courts on an expedited basis.
@odaraia but that's missing the argument.
It's not about whether or not to enforce Title IX but a dispute over what Title IX says in the first place.
The courts (this was really about lower courts, not Supreme) seek to ENFORCE Title IX by blocking Biden from, as they see it, misinterpreting it.
Congress is free to revise Title IX, so make sure you elect effective representatives.
Meanwhile, the courts will respect that democratic process by insisting that Biden follow the law passed by Congress.
@TCatInReality no, it doesn't take four years.
If a president is screwing up then he can be impeached within a day. IF we elect representatives willing to do the job.
So it all comes back to focusing on electing better representatives and kicking out the reps who are screwing it up.
In the US system they're there to represent the people.
@hansbot not a problem: if the accused is standing there with a bloody knife then it doesn't matter what his motives were.
That's the point: did he do it? Then motives don't matter in the first place.
@hansbot No, the Supreme Court decision did not kneecap Federal prosecutors power to go after corrupt government officials.
The Supreme Court in their ruling specifically went out of their way to say that prosecution of corruption is absolutely on the table. In fact, the ruling actively called for the prosecution of corruption.
So we really need to push back against this sort of misinformation.
@HamonWry I mean, the best way to do that is to push back on the lies that folks like Harris are telling about what the Supreme Court is actually doing and saying.
They keep putting out this propaganda and then insisting that they need more power so they can fix problems that don't actually exist, based on misinformation that's easily debunked by just reading the Supreme Court opinions directly from the source.
The game here is, first they put out misinformation that undermines public faith in the Supreme Court, and then they offer to the public that they'll fix it, if only we give them more power.
You see the conflict of interest here.
@TCatInReality but this doesn't respond to what the Supreme Court actually ruled.
It accepts this straw man, this boogeyman, that's been set up and asks us to throw a bunch of stuff into the air to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist because the Supreme Court ruling doesn't actually say what they claim it says.
But never mind that.
This is people in powerful positions taking advantage of public misinformation to reinforce their positions. We need to push back against it.
@1dalm The important part is not to act like Air Force is some independent entity. It follows the orders of the president, It works for the president.
There's this weird story that this is Air Force versus EPA, but both of them are executive branch entities, both answering to the same president. So they're on the same side, and we need to hold the president accountable for what they both do.
If Biden wants the Air Force to clean up PFAS then he would tell them to do it. If it doesn't get done, that's on Biden's head.
And we need to hold him accountable for it.
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:
