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 Well that's not particularly true either.
By some measures the US doesn't even crack the top 10.
No, domestic policy in the US is definitely not focused on freedom, everything from tax policy through drug restrictions through monitoring of communications in the US point the other direction.
I just have to laugh at this headline.
Chinese communist owned stores? That's funnily contradictory in itself, but add in the military part, an organization that by necessity has some communist-type structures involved, and well...
Gentleman, there's no fighting in the war room!
GOP Rep Introduces Bill After Discovering Chinese Communist-Owned Stores on US Military Base https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/gop-rep-intr...
@realcaseyrollins What?
You're referring to a governmental institution, an organization that constrains freedom, and projecting this freedom constraining organization as the free world... That doesn't make sense.
@Hoss Well, for example is there any doubt that a brick of gold is worth money? And yet that brick isn't doing anything related to laborious work.
So your framing just doesn't match what we know to be true. It's not an accurate framing of money in society.
@Hoss No, you're oversimplifying what money is and how it works, and so you miss the way that it dovetails with modern financial systems.
volkris
boosted
incompetence levels are 50% and steady
(50%) ■■■■■□□□□□
@rootschange what?
High profile cases have been ruling against billionaires and corporate interests, from overturning of Chevron through some of the financial services rulings of late.
This story of billionaires buying the Court are clickbait that just doesn't really match the rulings coming out of the Court.
@juergen_hubert I think you're overestimating the rationality of the Trump administration.
They're so irrational that when you're pointing out market size they'll be more interested in the color of the shoes of the negotiator.
You don't have to fight the fight. If you're too weary of it, take a break. That's understandable.
But that's where the fight is.
There's no getting around that. If you want/need to fight, then you have to engage the frontline where it is, not where it would be easy.
@theguardian_us_opinion I don't think such a commentator has a good view of what's going on from the inside.
Arguably this is the promotion of science in America as resources are going toward solid science and being taken away from ineffective or inefficient efforts.
That's positive for science, and we're seeing that on the ground, first hand, even as those who were comfortable with the status quo complain loudly.
@vij it's not at all like that.
If you follow the Court and understand the cases--which far too few people do--then you can see how the reasoning gets from there to here, and see how the rulings make a good deal of sense.
It only seems like a coinflip in the context of reporting that misleads their readers, or at least fails to properly describe the cases.
@MusiqueNow that's just how the US system was designed, though.
The judicial branch, like the other branches, was intentionally designed with limited powers over the others.
After all, we don't want these unelected judges to have too much power because often enough they would make orders that you and I wouldn't like.
@mystech this is a longstanding issue, where our elected lawmakers wrote obviously problematic laws long ago, and we kept reelecting lawmakers uninterested in fixing those laws.
Remember that during the midterm elections, and let's start holding lawmakers accountable for these laws. Let's stop giving them back their power after they failed so solidly.
@housepanther the Supreme Court didn't really side with the Trump administration as much as it called out the lower court for exceeding its legal authority.
That's how the Court acts, as an appellate court, reviewing lower courts' actions.
@old_hippie where specifically do you believe the ruling was wrong?
That's not what the Supreme Court does in the US system of government.
The position of the Court is emphatically not to support or attack such a thing. It's to give answers to specific questions of law brought before it.
It's BECAUSE the Supreme Court believes in the rule of law that it won't violate the legal system by speaking like that.
@Alonely0 I mean I would go on farther and say we don't even know how many lives of working class people that it cost.
I know quite a few people who lost their good insurance due to the regulations, and I personally lost my doctor over it.
This is one of those cases where the benefits might be visible but the costs are kind of hidden. Who knows how many people had worse health outcomes after it was put in place.
Both #Biden and #Trump are past their prime and not all there mentally.
There is a crucial difference in their presidencies, though: I didn't hear many people relying on Biden personally, but I hear a ton of people saying that these #tariffs don't seem right, but they trust that Trump knows what he's doing.
Even Trump supporters don't think it's right, but they think he knows what he's doing.
It's a mess.
@timkellogg.me I laugh because I find regex fun.
@lain seems obvious, but to lay it out, it was saying that the new gf is a trade down since she is apparently not as committed or fun.
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
