Show newer

@josemurilo

I'd say the key is to always emphasize empowering of end users.

We don't need one version of the . We should promote a million versions as each user chooses and tweaks their interfaces to fix their needs and wants.

We don't need to keep the network messy. We need to *allow* it to be messy, without trying to shoehorn it into one particular idea of what it should be.

Unfortunately, too many devs seem intent on making it match their own aesthetics, forgetting the different opinions of users.
@hamishcampbell

@amcasari so they don't even know that it happened for sure, or exactly what happened, but people are charging ahead based on assumptions

People are really sensationalizing the report of pushing back on 's call for impeaching judges.

No, the statement doesn't have teeth. It's a mild statement of the record, that it's an established norm not to impeach over disagreement.

is always free to go there anyway.

No, it's not Roberts throwing bombs or a sign of a new direction. In fact, it was about preserving direction.

Sure, it was appropriate for Roberts to make the statement, but it just wasn't the big deal so many are making it out to be.

Sensationalizing it does play into Trump's rhetoric, though.

@Nonilex and that sort of arrangement has been clearly unconstitutional, as the fundamental structure of the US government doesn't provide for independent actors outside of the three legally established branches.

Hopefully we're on the way towards cleaning that generational mess up, as it has caused a ton of legal and practical problems over the years.

@Christofurio it's not so simple as whether a group is getting together to curb abuses. That's not how the Court works.

The Court adjudicates cases before it on a case by case basis, based on the arguments presented to it, and often enough there isn't a clearcut, complete win for either/any perspective speaking before it.

The view of teams against team Maga just isn't a realistic view of how the Court functions.

@JuanWild@newsie.social

@Mogleg sounds like you're cherrypicking reports based on your own confirmation bias now.

@EndIsraeliApartheid

@micchiato The thing is, we're already there. These retirees getting Social Security payouts are already free to spend that on this parade of horriables.

And yet somehow the world has not melted down.

No this is silly. Letting people have more control of their own lives is, arguably, a pretty good idea on a few different levels.

@charly22 Oh in the US impeachment is not up to the judicial branch. It's a congressional process.

The Chief Justice is right to point out that such an impeachment would be inappropriate by existing norms and reasonable standards, but it's only an advisory opinion.

Constitutionally, Congress can impeach at will. It's purely up to them, and the Supreme Court has nothing to say about it.

@GottaLaff

@GottaLaff The Supreme Court absolutely did not make a mother fucker absolutely immune from crimes.

In fact, in its ruling the Supreme Court actively stated that prosecution of Trump should continue for his crimes.

A whole lot of reporting gets that backwards. It does make for better headlines I guess.

@EndIsraeliApartheid Independent press reports from around the world dispute that narrative, saying that the ceasefire had already been violated and was over before Israel acted.

@EndIsraeliApartheid Independent press reports from around the world dispute that narrative, saying that the ceasefire had already been violated and was over before Israel acted.

@karlauerbach I mean you can believe whatever you want, but you're talking about going to institutions to impose your beliefs when they, for better or worse, don't really agree with you.

You can yell at the umpire all you want, but if he doesn't agree with you about where you kind of believe the strike zone should be, you're not going to make any headway that way.

And that's my point. It sounds like you're trying to follow a strategy that is not only futile but can be actually counterproductive, actually supporting the exact behaviors that you are against.

If you want to improve things, especially if you want to convince other people over to your personal beliefs, then you have to think strategically, not just act on reflex like that.

@susankayequinn

Well, there's a complication that people have started talking about your truth and my truth.

You get to the point where people value truth... for a certain meaning of truth.

@Deixis9 Musk isn't an engineer... which is why he's not the one engineering these projects.

Company engineers are engineers, though, and they're the ones doing the engineering.

People need to stop being so obsessed with Musk.

@bibliolater that gets the argument backwards, though.

The idea isn't that the Court would grant Trump more power but rather that it would remove power from other branches, that have been throwing the system off-kilter for years, recognizing that the president has more responsibilities and accountability than he's had lately.

It's not granting power. It's recognizing the system of checks and balances at the core of the US design.

@bibliolater that gets the argument backwards, though.

The idea isn't that the Court would grant Trump more power but rather that it would remove power from other branches, that have been throwing the system off-kilter for years, recognizing that the president has more responsibilities and accountability than he's had lately.

It's not granting power. It's recognizing the system of checks and balances at the core of the US design.

@FreedomBrigade that conspiracy theory doesn't match the actual decisions coming out of the SCOTUS, though.

Just for example, SCOTUS ordered prosecution of Trump to continue in lower courts. That's hardly friendly to Trump.

It just doesn't make sensational headlines or political points scoring to look at what's actually in the rulings.

@bespacific Americans are already paying for it.

The idea of providing no-cost preventive care has always been a sham.

There is necessarily a cost to it. The question is just one of how the costs get to Americans, whether it's transparent or hidden in indirect charges.

@Thumper1964

That's not quite how it works.

Really, it comes down to whether CONGRESS, not SCOTUS, says it's OK. The major enforcement tools rest among those we elect democratically, not in the judicial branch.

We need to emphasize this much more and stop reelecting congresspeople who continually fail to do their jobs, all while pointing fingers at other branches.

@CatDragon @GottaLaff

@karlauerbach again, the operational ideal of taking someone to the ICC over crimes against humanity and seeking a warrant for arrest isn't just vague handwaving that you don't like someone or their policies.

It's not about here's the person, now find the crime.

It's about bringing specific charges, which sounds opposite from your larger point.

Such a use of the ICC undermines its legitimacy and gets us nowhere.

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.