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
@EngOnDemand seems like he has been pretty consistent, the mineral deal is pretty secondary to him compared to wanting to keep his country protected from Russia.
He's not changing his mind, he's just not interested in these these pointless deals when they fall apart.
@MikeDunnAuthor No, it's the exact opposite.
The CWA didn't authorize what the EPA was doing, and maybe it should! But it didn't. The people we elected decided not to cover that. The court respected the decision of the people that we elected.
The court didn't eviscerate the clean water act, it emphasized the clean water act, what it said and what it didn't say.
In the future maybe we'll elect people that will change the CWA, and at that point we really need the court to continue to do what it just did and emphasize what the law says.
@mmasnick.bsky.social you haven't? I have.
There have been a few addresses, news reports, governmental actions, etc about it.
I don't agree with it, but that you haven't heard one word about it just makes me think you need better news sources.
@mmasnick.bsky.social you haven't? I have.
There have been a few addresses, news reports, governmental actions, etc about it.
I don't agree with it, but that you haven't heard one word about it just makes me think you need better news sources.
@evoterra wrong branch of government.
This was a law passed by Congress, by the congresspeople we elected. We should stop reelecting them.
@MikeDunnAuthor It's not a right-wing SCOTUS but rather one that respects the laws passed by Congress regardless of political leanings.
So we elected congresspeople that passed certain legislation that might not have been for the best. Fine, let's dump them and elect better representatives who won't do that, who will fix the laws.
But that's not up to the court. That's up to us.
@sfbaykeeper No that gets it backwards.
They didn't weaken the act, they strengthened it by emphasizing what it actually says.
If Congress wants to change the act then they absolutely can. And under this philosophy the changes will be buttressed by court rulings.
The act just didn't say what some people thought it should say.
@breedlov Well, if people are willing to pay it...
Kind of dumb to pay that much to dine with the jerk, but apparently some are into it.
volkris
boosted
current punk rock levels are 94%
(94%) ■■■■■■■■■□
@watch4thedrop it just goes to show this story about majorities is just not real.
That's just not how the court works, it never has been.
But the thing is, how exactly is he going to do it?
He can talk all he wants about wanting to flap his arms and fly around the room, but unless there's an actual mechanism for doing it on the table it's just talk, no matter how much talk it is.
We should talk about the actual mechanism, not the blather that he spews out.
@breedlov Oh no, not at all. You're giving Trump too much credit.
Trump isn't far right. He's old, his mind is gone, and as he circles the drain he's especially short on self-control.
@yukiame notice, if you will, how JD Vance tends to use very simple words even when talking about big picture issues.
He gets it.
@breedlov Trump's awful, but let's not confuse inflation for what it's not.
Inflation is a problem with the money supply, not with policy choices. Prices go up and down based on dumb political choices, but that isn't necessarily inflation, and to confuse the two can even let politicians escape accountability.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social Well right, because that's just how the system is set up.
@CharlieMcHenry No, that's not what they ruled at all.
I don't know who is telling you this, but if you read the actual opinion, that's not what they said. Somebody is lying to you and you should stop believing them.
@zombywoof a lot of people aren't in it for the money. They just want to be part of something, part of a team.
@Nonilex it's not that SCOTUS sided with Trump, but that it takes more than a few hours to sort out what's going on.
Really, this isn't about Trump at all, but about whether the lower court acted properly. THAT's who the appeals court is going to be judging, not Trump.
Yes, and remember that Bad Things can happen when the #SCOTUS rushes a ruling.
I'm still thinking of the botched TikTok ruling, where factually incorrect elements likely come out of the rushed and incomplete record that the Court ruled on.
But once the ruling was issued, that was that.
Courts need to take their time. That's how they were designed. They aren't police; they are meant to patiently consider questions of #law.
@vaurora The money comes from somewhere, though. The ones giving 100 mil no longer have that 100 mil to chip in for the next 200 million ask.
Meanwhile, workers are paid, infrastructure invested in, and lunches purchased from shops in the course of the frittering.
Sure, it would be best if money is spent ideally, but at the least there's this bright side.
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:
