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
People want to find fights to fight.
We should be clear that Trump's so mentally deficient and cloistered that he likely isn't even consciously aware of what's happening.
That's nice.
Their latest high profile ruling was against Jim Crow, though.
@nomdeb calling names doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument to bring people over to your perspective...
The Supreme Court hands down evidence and reasoning to support its conclusions. We can all read it right there in public.
To call them names, instead of addressing their arguments, just makes you look like you're admitting you can't actually counter their conclusions.
No, the SCOTUS didn't have an opportunity to reduce partisan gerrymandering because it has no such authority.
It's not a legislative branch. It doesn't have the authority to do things outside of law.
Partisan gerrymandering is allowed constitutionally. SCOTUS can't change that, it can't rewrite the constitution. That requires a democratic processes, not an authoritative one.
... I think you're proving her point.
I've been hearing neutral academics going through the evidence for quite a while, and they back what Barrett says. Meanwhile, it seems you respond by... focusing on "big" cases, just as she said.
We really need to push back on the widespread idea that "activites" like the attacks on Iran are to be challenged by a War Powers Act. No, it's the opposite.
It's not that presidents can conduct war unless stopped by a vote, but that they need to vote of permission to start.
Without congressional approval Trump and top military brass are already acting unconstitutionally. They have already crossed the line (as in many places in the past) into impeachment territory.
But the common framing as no vote = no rejection shields him politically.
Second point, though: keep in mind that key figures in this administration simply follow the crowd of a wave of ignorant conservative blowhards. They literally don't know how government works or facts on the ground, damage they're causing.
Yes, they're war crimes, but not part of any strategic scheme. Just a bunch of idiots too oblivious to know what they're doing.
The Supreme Court doesn't redraw districts, and the redrawing of districts isn't a taking away of rights.
You're stretching really, really hard to connect dots that just don't support your conclusion.
That's not a claim I made.
I wish 8 in 10 Americans would just stop voting for crappy candidates.
Don't want old people in Congress? Fine. Don't vote for them.
Keep in mind that the US government throws around those words because it appeals to the support base of the administration.
Iran isn't going to be able to educate the folks the administration is speaking to with that sort of talk.
@TechConnectify funny timing again! SO often you come out with videos that JUST HAPPEN to match some purchase I'd just made and wanted to explain to others.
The coincidences are freaky.
I just recently acquired a hybrid with such a drivetrain and was explaining Atkinson cycles and small batteries to non-technical friends.
And boom, you came out with a longform video with all the data.
@pseyfert could have asked permission.
Whether the other driver gets the message plus acquiesces to the request is a different matter.
@ELS no, not at all.
Shelby County was largely about much broader concepts of federal-state interaction in the US that apply outside of anything involving voting rights.
"The Federal Government does not, however, have a general right to review and veto state enactments before they go into effect" is a statement with broad applicability.
If you read the Court's opinion, that's not AT ALL the logic they expressed in their ruling, either that one or this one.
They based their rulings on what laws said, not whether racism was or was not over.
It's up to lawmakers to gauge whether racism is or is not over and write laws accordingly. The SCOTUS can not and does not write rulings based on that.
It's more like the clock decries being called a broken lamp.
So much of this heated criticism is based on claims against the court that just aren't correct, often exactly backwards.
The funny thing is that politico itself isn't innocent of this. The outfit being called out for misrepresenting the Court is participating in reporting about the Court calling out agencies like them who are at fault?
We should at least recognize that conflict of interests, as it's a pretty significant problem in the US these days.
What specific doctrines and rules do you think they invented and ignored?
The SCOTUS rulings go through the long histories of rules and doctrines they're applying, and far from sidelining lawmakers the rulings have put them front and center, citing lawmakers directly.
The Supreme Court did not take away the rights of Black voters. Rather it supported the VRA as our democratic institutions passed it.
Don't like what the VRA says? GREAT! That's why we have lawmakers to make better law. We should stop reelecting the congresspeople who failed to improve the law.
The Brennan Center can also write about the world being flat. So what? We can read the opinion for ourselves to see what it did, and we can see for ourselves that any such outfit putting out such nonsense seems to be just trying to claim headlines and/or score political points.
After all, that's reasonable marketing for them.
Look at what the SCOTUS ruling actually said, not what some thinktank tells you they said.
I think they're reading too much into this, drawing too much of a grand plan when a simpler explanation suffices.
Certain politicians are simply benefiting, politically and legally, from Israel being at war.
There's no reason to go farther than that.
Seems like if they were after violent repression of soft feelings for humans they'd be getting on with it more broadly by now...
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:
