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
To be clear, whether it matters or not, Trump and so many of his supporters live in an echo chamber where they are unaware of stuff like mass starvation.
It's not that they acquiesced to this stuff but that they're simply not aware of it, even actively refusing to believe it.
Mainstream conservatives talk about "left-wing extremism" constantly, and they sure aren't referring to pro-business free-market Liberals!
They focus on culture war stuff like trans issues and immigration.
It needs to be emphasized that the Monsanto case is about federal vs state regulation.
It's not really about a "multibillion-dollar wave of lawsuits over Roundup cancer claims." Those are just the triggering elements.
It would be like saying the trial of a guy accused of murder during a robbery is about the money he stole. No, the money just set the ball in motion.
One reason this distinction is important is because if we don't like it we need to demand that our legislators change the federal or state regulations. This is about democracy, not about Monsanto.
@drmike Wow, Robert Reich is writing for The Guardian now? It's as if folks in the US have finally gotten tired of his shtick.
It's funny that he starts off personalizing SCOTUS decisions itself effective condemnation (or at least ignorance) of the entire philosophy of the US government.
Anyway, if you check out the actual transcript of the speech you'll see that, as is his way, Reich mischaracterizes what it actually said, as hinted by his disjointed, out of context quotations--always a red flag.
Reich went down that path long ago. He's no longer a serious commentator.
The ruling is correct. Go after the department, not the individual officers, when they follow department rules that may need reform.
Then, let the department penalize the individuals and change its rules if need be.
That's a much better outcome than just getting the heads of a few low level individuals but letting the rest of the system keep going.
No. It's not tendentiousness or mendaciousness. It's simply a court recognizing practical issues of timing of opinions vs a fast-moving situation with actual harms involved, and taking steps to simply avoid those harms of timing.
Some folks are reading too much into this, circularly arguing that it's really important and therefore worth huge attention and therefore really important.
No, this is merely a bit of paperwork to resolve realities of process.
I don't think you're reading this correctly.
Sounds like the Court already knows how its redistricting rulings are going to come out, it just hasn't issued them yet, so it's simply avoiding the harms that would be caused by mere timing.
It's not about precedent. It's simply practicality.
The right way to handle a corrupt judge or justice is through the legislative branch, who has the authority to impeach and remove.
Unfortunately we keep electing and reelecting representatives who are ineffective, almost proudly so.
We need to stop reelecting these jerks.
You say
"the Court’s defenders make arguments that sound outwardly reasonable, but that depend entirely on cherry-picking their examples and ignoring the counterexamples"
but that comes after you also said
"the memos actually bespeak a decision that was deeply principled"
which is more of what I've heard.
Those aren't counterexamples but statements of principle. They can't be cherrypicked because they're not based on example.
I think you have this wrong.
The technology behind Fediverse, ActivityPub, doesn't support that kind of thing, sadly. It's one of the big engineering misses of this platform.
Fediverse is all about instances, not about users. It's unfortunate, but at this point it's baked in. They can't really change it now.
But then, a lot of the developers prefer it that way, nevermind how it lets users down.
THIS.
Watch Patel perform in pubilc and it's clear that he knows his job is to roll around in the mud, to stage a fight, not to do anything serious there.
Trump's supporters want a staged WWE wrestling match. So that's what this administration is putting on.
Patel knows what he's doing.
Correction: Trump [always] chickens out on Russia to attempt to partially mitigate his screwup wrt Iran.
So many mainstream Republicans continue to demand harsh treatment of Russia and oppose the lifting of sanctions.
But Trump, being a spineless follower, waffles on who he's following on any given day.
Tim Cook / U.S.-centric political discourse ⚠️🇺🇸🤡
Fortunately, I think more and more people recognize that Trump is out of his mind, and that nothing spewing forth from him is worth taking seriously.
That's not really the argument in this case.
The major issue is that the state allows all sorts of discrimination, just not THIS discrimination, making it discrimination between discrimination (yes, CO made a mess of this) against religion.
It's not about anti-discrimination laws, but about laws being ignored, so the complete opposite.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/25-00581qp.pdf
IPFS is all about static content.
If you have something dynamic, IPFS is probably not the right tool for the job.
That's not quite the issue in St. Mary v Roy.
It's not over whether the diocese has the right to refuse enrollment to children of gay parents--of course it can as it's their schools--but rather whether it can participate in a state program that allows discrimination in other ways but not this one.
So CO has made kind of a mess of its program, discriminating over discrimination. Some discrimination is OK, but not this discrimination.
Some are allowed to ignore the law but some aren't.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/25-00581qp.pdf
Yes.
I've seen quite a lot of response to that as being pretty reasonable, showing that the Court is taking its role seriously and learning from behavior of past administrations.
What? The memos that leaked showed the opposite, that they were apolitically protecting the structure of the federal government.
It's really showing these conspiracy theories and dramatic stories to be false.
They're not using the shadow docket to regularly solve politically charged cases. They're using it to temporarily provide relief while the process works its way to solution.
That's the entire point of these orders: this case is in process, but it's going to take time, so how do we minimize damages during that delay?
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:
