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
@bryan FWIW, it's one of my axes es to grind that activity pub is actually a pretty crappy system.
It's just not well designed, and we've seen the results of that over the years as it takes too many resources and doesn't offer features that users really want.
So just wanted to pipe in and say, yeah, you're on the right track calling it out for its failings.
@Nonilex The chief doesn't control the other justices, though. If the other justices didn't agree with the ruling it wouldn't have gone through, as is extremely evident in every single case before the court.
He can only steer rulings in the sense of choosing different wording. Beyond that, the other justices have as much power as he does to make their decisions.
This is a silly way to approach the Supreme Court.
@MugsysRapSheet Yes seriously that is how the US government functions.
@mikeash you really don't understand the party.
If you watch how Republicans actually act, they bash him anytime he gets out of line. Conservative media starts talking about their issues weeks before Trump figures out what he's supposed to talk about, and he babbles because if he says substantial things he runs the risk of crossing the party. So it's safer for him not to say anything at all.
For the past week the party has been raking him over the coals because he did so bad at the debate. They've been bashing him mercilessly.
No, it makes for good headlines to say that Trump has that kind of control, but he doesn't. He's subservient to them. And honestly the best way to oppose Trump is to point out what a loser he is, not build up his brand by saying he has that level of control.
@jstatepost The block button is your prerogative.
But if you follow the links that you posted, Trump did not say that according to those links.
If you care about the facts then you'll care about promoting this easily debunked claim.
@jstatepost if you follow the link and then follow the link, it's two levels deep but no, he didn't say that. This claim is false.
This is a post promoting a falsehood.
And especially when talking about falsehoods we need to speak out against people promoting falsehoods.
Or else you're no better than Trump.
@Acronymesis not at all! You completely misunderstand the point if that's your takeaway.
It's not both sides, it's either side. If either side gave us somebody worth voting for then we should. Unfortunately neither did.
So we should withhold our votes.
I've heard it said that if you don't vote with whichever party then you are a coward. I think that's exactly backwards, and even reflects poorly all the person making that argument. It doesn't take much courage to go with the group.
Instead I go the other way: no matter which party you might prefer in general, it takes courage to say they nominated a moron, and fortunately the other party also nominated a loser, so no matter what the US is going to slog through these next few years.
In my opinion the courageous position is to say no, you nominated a moron, and I'm not going to give you my vote. We're going to be okay I guess, whether you win or not, but I'm not going to let you assume that you have my vote if you insist on nominating a moron. You should have nominated someone better. You should have nominated someone worthy of my vote. Do better next time.
That's the state of #USPolitics . As South Park said, big douche versus turd sandwich. So screw both #Democrats and #Republicans. Neither of you managed to nominate someone worth voting for, so I'm voting for my dog.
To give either party our votes is to sign on to their nomination of garbage people. Let's not. Let's say that they need to actually nominate worthwhile administrators.
But more practically, let's focus on #Congress. No matter who wins this election, they're going to suck, but we can still express ourselves through our representation in Congress, and that's honestly how it should be anyway.
Check out your representatives. See how they have actually been voting, and vote them out if they have been letting you down. That's really where our focus should be anyway.
Not on which jerk ends up in the Oval Office.
(But thank God #Biden is on his way out, as he has been terrible for #science in the US, which has not gotten nearly enough attention from the press.)
@Nonilex no you have that backwards, the Supreme Court ruling does not amass power in the executive branch as it tells the executive branch that it cannot prosecute in some cases.
The Supreme Court ruling was all about limiting the powers of the executive branch, not amassing more.
As for the positions in the branch, they are necessarily political. By definition. The Supreme Court didn't invent that, that is a direct result of the structure of the federal government.
And the president has to be held politically accountable for what his employees do. This is core to checks and balances the US system.
@x0 anything like that is anti-democratic, though.
We the people, acting through the political parties, nominated these two idiots. If we want to an elect an idiot, well, that's democracy.
Going farther, though, the requirement you bring up serves to reinforce powerful people. It supports the status quo which, in my opinion, is itself a reason not to go that direction.
The way to avoid the presidency of an idiot like Trump is to talk to your fellow people and have an exchange of ideas to let them know what a moron he is and why they shouldn't vote for such a loser.
No, it's going completely the wrong direction to try to impose new rules like this because you don't like the choice made by the people around you.
That path just leads to more trouble down the line.
@mikeash we should worry about the entire federal government, especially the representatives that we elect to Congress.
There's not much the president can do without Congressional authorization, so I would be way more worried about the idiots that we keep reelecting and re-empowering to Congress.
@MugsysRapSheet no that's not how the US government functions.
The House doesn't obstruct, but rather the people that we elected to the House get to represent us in passing legislation that they find to be compelling.
Yeah, we should stop reelecting the same jerks to the house, but so long as we do, they're not obstructing, they're representing us.
@mikeash The difference is a compliant federal institution.
Trump would have neither buy in from the federal bureaucracy nor the sanction of the courts. He would likely even be slapped down by Congress. Again.
We know his track record. He's a loser. He lost over and over again, and if he tried to do such things next year he would lose again. Because the guy is just that much of a loser.
Roosevelt knew how to win, how to operate within in the system. Trump's whole schtick is that he doesn't, and that's why he failed over and over, and he'll continue to fail, even if elected, if he tries to do stuff like that.
@pixel I mean, I assume it's a combination of failures of his parents and his involvement in the entertainment industry...
Off the top of my head I figure those are the main influences that screwed him up so badly.
@MugsysRapSheet compliant Congress?
Have you checked the record of Congress lately? They can barely comply with their own duties much less anything the other branch is asking for.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court refused to grant Trump the blanket indemnity that he was seeking, and that's not even getting into case after case where the court refused to join Trump in even considering his disputes.
So the record just doesn't support the conspiracy theory you're laying out here.
It's nutty. It's not realistic.
@ech @RussCheshire it's not quibbling, though. It's the substantial question of whether the money does or does not exist since the proposal is to take away money, that may not exist in the first place.
That's a core issue.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether companies are bad or good.
@MugsysRapSheet well why not is because he doesn't have authority to do so.
A president does not have the authority to rewrite the Constitution.
No, SCOTUS didn't decide that the president is above the law, it went out of its way to say the exact opposite, demanding the continued prosecution of the former president.
I don't know who you're listening to, but they are misleading you. If you read the Supreme Court ruling yourself it debunks those claims.
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:
