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
volkris
boosted
Today #ClayAndBuck again expressing an approach elections with the attitude of choosing the lineup of a football game with zero familiarity with the idea that voters might simply want to support a candidate they don't personally approve of. It's a foreign concept for them. #USPolitics #democracy
@lillyfinch during oral arguments the justices tended to all Express support for section 2.
Further, the court doesn't have the authority to strike down section 2 because that's not the question before them.
It's very unlikely that they will, or else they would have accepted a case where that was actually being requested. AND they wouldn't have brought the arguments in the directions they went.
All of these stories about the Court striking down section 2 seem based in misunderstanding of what's actually happening in this case.
@lillyfinch no, that gets it exactly backwards.
The whole argument before the Court is about respecting the 14th Amendment and preventing states from engaging in racial gerrymander.
The challengers in the case also emphasize that they're not asking for Section 2 to be struck. They're merely asking that the 14th Amendment be applied to it.
That doesn't make sense.
Designating antifa doesn't grant ability to murder with impunity. If they were going there then why waste time with the designation?
No, go for Occam's Razor on this one: idiot politicians just posturing for their idiot base to score political points.
There's no deep scheme here. The politicians involved just aren't that smart.
@libraonfire.bsky.social how in the world do you see that conspiracy working?
It would require quite the alignment of conflicting interests, and shutting down the VRA isn't even before the Court.
Problem is, the article is addressing something that is emphatically not what the #SCOTUS is looking at in the free speech vs conversion therapy case.
It wants to challenge the premise, but it's the wrong premise!
At argument the challenger emphasized that their case was about one specific practice that had nothing to do with anything like shock or medicated treatment. This was actually core to their case.
And the state admitted they had no scientific information to submit regarding that specific practice.
See how that article completely misses the mark, then?
I mean, great, this is how it was supposed to work the whole time. I don't know how much credit I give Newsom for being so late to act.
@light But that's my point: by and large whether they are evil or not, the folks I'm referring to are working with a separate set of facts.
Treating them as just evil misidentifies the problem and so will too often produce solutions that actually make the situation worse.
Often enough folks engaging them as evil ends up playing into their game, handing them successes that they wouldn't otherwise have.
I'd even say that kind of thing helped get Trump reelected.
volkris
boosted
#ClayAndBuck: Nobody who is food insecure in America is starving. In fact, a lot of them are fat. Also there was no starvation in #Gaza. #USPolitics
@LevZadov Don't discount that we do directly elect our representatives.
And that's the point, we need to do a better job with the direct democracy that we have. Unfortunately too many people overlook it, missing the trees for the forest, and end up promoting these unhealthy situations.
Bizarre to talk about voters not having control and democracy not existing in context of a system of voters voting and democratically empowering officials.
No, that's just conspiracy theory that doesn't really match reality.
In reality, we voted for this mess. We should stop submitting our votes for a bunch of idiots, but we did and we do.
Yay democracy.
I think you're falling for some sensational headlines.
No, a SCOTUS ruling on the VRA here will not create a permanent Republican control of government. That's nonsense, but such headlines will drive clicks.
Heck, as it stands, the confusion that has been existing in the VRA has made more room for political trickery. SCOTUS clarity will put things on a more solid footing to fight that kind of thing.
@ferricoxide I don't think you understand what's going on here.
Firstly, the LA redistricting case isn't about one party rule. It's about settling a longstanding contradiction in law that has vexed courts for decades and left officials around the country without clear rules for how they should conduct elections.
But as for hearings, many of the folks we elect to congress LIKE those exchanges because they can fundraise and score political points off of them.
We keep electing stupid and combative congresspeople so it's no surprise that they set up stupid and combative hearings.
The rules don't need to be changes as they're working exactly as intended. We should probably change the congresspeople, though.
To understand the #GOP and the #MAGA phenomenon, keep in mind that so many folks backing that side have trouble understanding other perspectives, instead projecting their own viewpoint onto others, assuming everyone else is just like them.
It's a big problem that folks can't seek consensus when they start with different sets of facts, and this is one of the major sources of that.
Here #Kilmeade has a personal respect for force so he assumes everyone else does too.
#BrianKilmeade, illustrating the usual projection:There will be peace in the middle east this time because Egypt will join our side because they s...
volkris
boosted
#BrianKilmeade, illustrating the usual projection: There will be peace in the middle east this time because Egypt will join our side because they saw how cool #Israel is when they used their bombs on Iran. #USPolitics
@Geoffberner But how is it supposed to work?
My worry is that this stuff is actually going to empower Trump even farther because it lacks a coherent and workable strategy.
Trump supporters are going to be emboldened by this stuff just as they were emboldened by things before the election. Arguably that stuff got him elected.
I understand that this stuff is well-meaning, but all too often well-meaning things are counterproductive and actually make problems worse.
It's a know your enemy sort of thing to say, no, #Trump is not a king. He's a stupid brand. And recent events just highlight that as he slapped his name on the #Gaza agreement.
I keep thinking of the Trump brand of wine.
Trump didn't make that wine. I doubt he knows how wine is even made at all. He's notorious for not drinking, so how would he even know if the wine is good or bad? He doesn't know anything about it, he just slapped his brand on it.
To counter Trump it's foolish to approach him as a king. In fact that might might make things worse because it brings more attention to his brand.
The #nokings stuff is foolish because it misses what's going on here. And it will serve to actually embolden and strengthen Trump.
Know your enemy. He's not a king, he's not that smart, he's just a brand hopping from issue to issue the same way he hops from crappy wine to crappy steaks.
It's a know your enemy sort of thing to say, no, #Trump is not a king. He's a stupid brand. And recent events just highlight that as he slapped his name on the #Gaza agreement.
I keep thinking of the Trump brand of wine.
Trump didn't make that wine. I doubt he knows how wine is even made at all. He's notorious for not drinking, so how would he even know if the wine is good or bad? He doesn't know anything about it, he just slapped his brand on it.
To counter Trump it's foolish to approach him as a king. In fact that might might make things worse because it brings more attention to his brand.
The #nokings stuff is foolish because it misses what's going on here. And it will serve to actually embolden and strengthen Trump.
Know your enemy. He's not a king, he's not that smart, he's just a brand hopping from issue to issue the same way he hops from crappy wine to crappy steaks.
@europesays The truth is it's not really up to Mike Johnson.
The Speaker of the House only represents House members. If House members wanted to be in session then they would have him call them to session.
The Speaker is not a monarch. He acts only with the approval of the chamber. That's why he's called Speaker as he represents them.
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:
