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
@zombywoof could just as easily say the other US courts are biased against the Trump administration. It's not a very useful comparison, especially considering timescales of the US judicial process.
But in the end, with the structure of the judicial system this isn't a clearcut way of looking at things, with lower courts bound by the past.
@huntingdon problem is, all too many people actually believe that's how it works!
And that explains so much about why we keep electing officials who are really bad at their jobs.
It's simply not true that the shutdown is the only point of leverage Democrats have over the #GOP.
That's not how #Congress works.
In particular, we've seen how fractured the Republicans are in the House, where Democrats can absolutely peel off a few members to gain majority on votes.
So that line about this shutdown being the only point of leverage is simply misleading political point-scoring.
@lcamtuf is the debate that Google submitted a report of a bug found by AI?
And, I guess, that they shouldn't recognize such bugs?
@ChrisHolladay all we have to do is to stop electing and reelecting them.
There doesn't need to be a law. There just needs to be better understanding of civics and current events among voters making those decisions.
That's not how the Court works, though. This is a question of law that will be argued by lawyers, regardless of Trump.
It doesn't matter one bit what Trump thinks. These are professional jurists who will make their best cases. for the Court to hear.
Yes, because I'm not a fascist!
Yeah, people can vote for dumb things. People can vote for fascists. If you really want to vote for these fascist policies, go for it. That's how democracy works. You can vote for a fascist if you want to.
Totally cool with it? Well I mean it's annoying to me. I think it's extremely ignorant the positions that you are taking. I think it's bad for society that you would take power away from workers like that. But I'm not an anarchist, I'm into that whole democracy thing, so you can vote fascist policies like rent control if you want to.
Totally cool? Well, I wouldn't say totally, but I accept that dumb people will vote for dumb things and that's how democracy works, that's how government works.
You want to vote for fascist things like rent control? That's your right. It annoys me for privileged people to vote for fascist things, but that's democratic government for you.
@RD4Anarchy there's no qualification.
If people want to vote for fascists they can vote for fascists. You don't have to say that, it's not like voting for a racist is different whether you voted for them or not.
If you want to vote for a fascist go for it!
@Lyle The problem is, even though this kind of thing is opposed by everybody, folks have dramatically different opinions on how to address it.
Emphasizing the problem doesn't help resolve the dispute over the cure.
@RD4Anarchy you say the rent control you experienced was voted in by the community, but you seem to be missing that I'm saying exactly that the community is welcome to vote it in!
When you point things like that out, it just sounds like you are completely missing what I'm saying. And I'm really trying to emphasize it, so I don't know what the disconnect is.
I'm saying something and you seem to be reading something completely different.
YES the community can vote it in. THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT
No, this gets the argument before the Court exactly wrong.
Both sides appearing before the Court agreed that "states have the right and the responsibility to regulate a practice that has been proven harmful to its victims." That isn't the argument here, so this editorial doesn't seem to have understood the issue.
SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to overturn the VRA, and in fact that is explicitly not what's being requested before the Court right now.
It was discussed during oral arguments, and despite what so many sensational headlines yelled, the movants before the Court specifically said they were NOT putting overturning VRA on the table.
Democracy dies when people fall for false headlines like that...
Following through to the actual TX SC decision, as best I can through the links, the ruling doesn't do what the article suggests.
This is the ruling, right? It's a clarification on Canon 4 related to activity outside of the judge's actual job, effectively related to the judge speaking in public.
So it wouldn't sanction discrimination against same-sex couples because it would operate outside authority.
If anyone has a different link, please share. I wish such articles would link to what they were talking about.
Following through to the actual TX SC decision, as best I can through the links, the ruling doesn't do what the article suggests.
This is the ruling, right? It's a clarification on Canon 4 related to activity outside of the judge's actual job, effectively related to the judge speaking in public.
So it wouldn't sanction discrimination against same-sex couples because it would operate outside authority.
If anyone has a different link, please share. I wish such articles would link to what they were talking about.
@RD4Anarchy I never said you didn't.
Of course there are winners and losers when powerful officials put fingers on the scales. That's part of why they do it, to benefit some parties, and congrats, you were privileged.
However, you seem to miss the ones who lose out when their abilities to negotiate for better housing for themselves is blocked by the power shift to some statehouse.
Great, you won! But at the expense of others, a downside that you seem to miss.
US Politics
That kind of thinking assumes it's not going to get worse. But it is.
Might as well hold firm? No, the costs involved in holding firm end up making it even harder for those people to get food and healthcare. It can get worse, and it is getting worse due to the holding firm.
I'm glad that you are able to start a monthly donation to your local food bank, but a lot of us are feeling a pinch so we don't have that extra leeway, because of the holding firm.
That's not the choice on the table here, despite a whole lot of politicians lying about it to score political points.
It's pretty disgraceful.
@corbden honestly, more likely that a bunch of amateur-ish reporters are going to get some clicks from putting some slop on the internet.
This kind of headline does not make me think they actually have anything from any experts worth saying, and I wish we wouldn't encourage it.
My scenario is nonsense? No I've seen exactly my scenario play out over and over in real life. It's not unusual at all to see people negotiate higher rent in exchange for some value that they may perceive, and it's their money. The worker does what they want with their earnings.
I think it's funny that you pivot to having to pay more, that word having being pretty opposite of what I laid out with options of not. So much for having to.
And and ancap argument? Not at all! If the people want to give that power up to some some government official, hey it might piss off ancaps, but I respect that decision of the governed.
The problem is people not realizing that they are giving up their power, and in the end a lot of them are worse off because they don't realize the trade they are making.
Rent control regulations are about government officials trying to claim power, selling something for votes. Let's just be honest about that.
@RD4Anarchy Yes, exactly! It really is fucked up!
Maybe you want to go for the cheapest place you can get. Sure. Maybe you want to pay a little bit more for a place that makes you a little bit more happy.
Well, you worked for that money, and it's such a power grab for this official to stand in your way because he wants to be able to approve how workers use their own labor.
Yes, I'd say it is fucked up! But more to the point here, we should recognize it for the power grab that it is when in a time that people are worried about power and throwing around terms like fascist.
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:
