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
That's not what the reporting says, though. Even clicking your link about the original FP report it says nothing about propping up a false pope.
It sounded like a vague threat, yes. Troubling yes. But not so concrete and actionable as propping up a false pope.
@PaulWermer hmm, I was thinking of the Motion to Vacate whereby mainly Democrats put leadership changes on the table but then let Republicans have it back for some reason.
Now I remember that they made changes to that rule when they reconvened.
Still, there are simple majority processes in the House where Democrats could make significant gains by breaking off a tiny number of Republicans since their majority is so small.
I think it's more that he just doesn't care. That's a factual matter, after all, and their whole thing is appearances and using terms that would engage with their base.
I felt the situation change when Netanyahu had the choice to give up the US relationship if it would keep him out of prosecution.
Nonsense. Democrats in Congress cooperated when they could have taken control of the House already.
The procedures are there, and they've been demonstrated.
Unless we're going to stop reelecting Democrats who aren't interested in putting up an opposition, we'll get more of the same, but the first step is pointing out their share of the responsibility.
Really it's about electing congresspeople who will impeach this behavior.
We don't need an age limit. We just need to stop electing and reelecting ineffective congresspeople.
People say that, but when I actually go read opinions and listen to oral arguments, I don't think he's a wildcard at all. He seems pretty consistent has he addresses the actual questions before the Court.
A problem is that there's so much misreporting on the actual questions before the Court, and that's where that impression seems to come from.
When I see people complain about him being a wild card, often enough they're citing issues that miss what the Court actually did.
That's not an accurate reading of the order.
The lower court could have always acted on the request to dismiss; this doesn't free it to do so.
Instead, this tells the lower court that it has to at least address the issues raised in the request. They're really weighty issues, too, so it's not largely symbolic. They stand to have broader application far outside of Bannon.
Now the lower court can deny the request, but it has to at least consider it.
A lot of Americans may be hoping judges will save democracy, but that's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government is structured.
In the US, judges don't have such power or authority. Their branch is intentionally restrained, with authority put in the hands of the other branches more directly answerable to the people.
It's mainly up to Congress, the representatives we elect, to save democracy on our behalf. We need to elect better congresspeople, but too many give them a pass by focusing on the courts.
They're not being charged to exist. They're being taxed based on income to provide for society as a whole.
Yes, taxation can be a burden, and we can talk about how to conduct taxation fairly and equitably, but that framing isn't helpful.
MAGA, for years: #Iran is a death cult. They don't value life, and 42 virgins and etc.
MAGA, today: Why doesn't the death cult bow to our demands as we threaten death?
@SecondJon never said it was one-sided...
#Trump supporters keep suggesting that critics of the guy have a knee-jerk reaction against any position he takes, because it couldn't possibly be that the criticisms were founded.
But it's funny to realize that so many of his supporters have a knee-jerk reaction to assume that he's right. In fact, they are explicit about this, talking about having faith in his judgment even if they don't understand it.
Funny how that works.
Maybe in the back of their minds they recognize their own prejudices and just project that onto everyone else.
KBJ misunderstood the facts of the case, that the other eight understood.
This was emphatically NOT about incidental restrictions on free speech. Had it been then the opinion would have likely gone the other way.
This was about direct censorship of disfavored speech, not incidental restriction.
This is an instance where being the outlier is a pretty good indicator that maybe the person misunderstands what they're looking at.
It's just nuts to say this opens such a can of worms. She might as well have been talking about the implications of our living on a flat earth.
But this case was emphatically not about subjecting young people to conversion therapy practices, and that was key to the contect of the decision.
Where, specifically, did you find the opinion irrational?
In an 8-1 ruling it's a tall order to say all eight acted irrationally together.
Interesting analogy.
The poor solicitor for Trump is going to be put in an unwinnable position, having to perform for Trump instead of focusing on trying to somehow win in front of the justices.
Poor Vincenzo. I guess the best he can do is try to trick Trump into thinking he won.
@PaulDitz if that's true then it should have been brought up to the Court.
It wasn't put before them, though, so they weren't able to consider that in their deliberations.
In fact, as I recall the plaintiffs pretty much admitted the opposite.
And remember, we're in this position because RBG openly tried to time her retirement.
Hopefully folks learned a lesson.
@MusiqueNow Well it can be both, I suppose.
Protections against government censorship are especially important when government gets to decide what is malpractice and thus subject to censorship.
That's the point.
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:
