volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@HappySkullsplitter Trump didn't say Ukraine started the war.

A whole lot of people are spreading misinformation on social media about that, but that's not what he said.

@realcaseyrollins

@zombywoof if you look up the list of SpaceX launch customers, there are PLENTY who aren't governmental.

@Itchy

SCOTUS will demand that the government clear this up through the normal legal process of judicial procedure.

@burnoutqueen I'm not forgetting that at all.

If you want to ignore the law as a mere social construct without teeth, ok, but in so far as we talk about the law, whether applied or not, we should be clear about what it actually says.

It may be purely academic, but no sense getting the facts wrong.

@ricardoharvin

@burnoutqueen I'm not forgetting that at all.

If you want to ignore the law as a mere social construct without teeth, ok, but in so far as we talk about the law, whether applied or not, we should be clear about what it actually says.

It may be purely academic, but no sense getting the facts wrong.

@ricardoharvin

@ricardoharvin

You're missing that without legality and act cannot be official. If an action is illegal, it's not an official act.

Remember: the Supreme Court actively sent Trump's case for further prosecution for the actions that didn't have clear legal basis.

The whole story that the Supreme Court said Trump can do anything is quickly debunked by the fact that the Supreme Court referred him for further prosecution. No, that story is completely wrong, gets what the Supreme Court said backwards.

What the Supreme Court actually said was that any president, in that case Biden, can't prosecute somebody who didn't do anything illegal. That's all it said.

If Trump does something illegal, which I'm sure he will do if he hasn't already, then according to Supreme Court he is perfectly open to prosecution, as the act would not be official by definition.

@burnoutqueen

@markku Well it gets a bit tricky because if we can't even agree on what his words were, how likely is it that we'll be able to come to a consensus about what he actually did in complicated and breaking current events?

Agreeing on the content of a sentence should be easy. Much harder to agree about a directive issued in a complicated governmental procedure based on documents that haven't made it through the publication process yet.

Every day now we get four different versions of what Trump did even just through professional news organizations, not to mention political outfits and simple rumor. How can we relate him to other dictators by his actions if we don't know what his actions are?

@jamesmarshall @pinskal

@Johns_priv

I'd say rewriting history so propagandistically--rewriting the words of political enemies--is a hallmark of fascism.

We counter fascism by calling it out and saying no, we're not going to accept the false narrative.

Trump said what he said. It's fascist to insist that we didn't see what we saw for the sake of political convenience.

I'd encourage you to recognize that you're not only defending but actually promoting fascism with your rhetoric here.

@jamesmarshall @pinskal

@nuurnu such is the case when folks like @jamesmarshall just keep going around and around the same circle trying to "break through" a record that's inconvenient to his argument.

But heck, it's social media. I'm game.

@pinskal

@markku

But we get into a weird situation when we are even rewriting what's being said.

We can't compare what a man says vs what he does when right out of the gate we replace what he says with something different.

@jamesmarshall @pinskal

@quinn I deal with those systems. I'm part of the effort to ensure that we don't live in that world!

@davidaugust

@nimi thanks.

It's curious that that would be removed, but when I go to https://www.nasa.gov/people-of-nasa/ there are plenty of women being represented front and center.

I know some institutions have been overreacting and issuing all sorts of weird directives to staff that later get rolled back when it turns out they weren't based on any substantial administrative policy. Perhaps something similar happened here.
@victorvonvortex @hacks4pancakes

@Lurkle@mstdn.social

Sometimes the story is so obviously unrealistic that it deserves to be dismissed out of hand. It's like involving flat Earth theories in healthcare decisions. No obviously that's not how that works.

If our control of nuclear material was so tenuous, then you might as well give up on everything. The danger to every single person would be palpable and continuous regardless of who's in office. Anyone who wants to do bad things could just grab some radioactive material and build a dirty bomb. Fortunately, that's not how this works, and obviously that's not how this works.

These stories deserve to be dismissed because they just don't make sense. They obviously don't make sense. Why in the world would we set up procedures with such obvious, unmitigated points of failure for such serious risks? Obviously we wouldn't.

So whoever is spreading this misinformation, think about it a little bit. Realize that the politicized story they are selling really just doesn't make any sense.

And then stop listening to those people.

@davidaugust @quinn

@brianvastag

This has nothing to do with science.

But if anything, firing the workforce is the enemy of fascism. You can't really impose fascist will without employees.

@KraftTea they had years to do this.

They didn't.

So now we're going to try something different.

@hacks4pancakes specifically what is being deleted?

@davidaugust

Isn't it obvious? If a couple of days of employment confusion leads to such dire consequences then we have much much deeper problems.

Our systems are much more rigorous than that. You think we're going to set up a system that can so collapse if somebody is out sick for a couple of days? No. Obviously that's not how we do things.

And as for source, this is a field I work in. I'm part of the team that makes sure things are not so fragile.

Don't believe the sensationalism. Those stories just don't make sense.

@quinn

@davidaugust and here you are promoting that perception then.

If we're going to focus so much on perception then it would seem you should be a little more careful promoting stories that degrade the perception that you want to maintain.

But perception aside, this is the kind of story that so often ends up being debunked, but more importantly, it's not really in line with the reporting that's going around. And it's not in line with good practices anyway.

If our system is so fragile that 2 days worth of employment confusion would be so critical then there were major problems in the first place.

Fortunately, things don't tend to be that fragile.

@quinn No, that's not how it works.

There's a whole lot of people running around talking about the sky falling, but they're just promoting misinformation. That's not how any of this works.

Don't believe people who try to sell that kind of sensational story.