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
The thing is, if Republicans really did want Social Security to end, or whatever the actual claim is, they wouldn't have to do anything.
The program is mathematically unsustainable as the administrators of the program have been warning for years. If Republicans wanted to cut Social Security they wouldn't have to face the public blowback of acting against it. They could just sit back and let it cut itself.
The whole story about Republicans wanting to cut Social Security is just really out there fear-mongering. It doesn't match the reality of how federal finances are working out.
And we really need to call out the politicians trying to sell that, well, conspiracy theory.
volkris
boosted
The best thing the Biden administration has done on infrastructure is waive Buy America provisions the president signed into law. Tonight, the president promised to enforce those regulations. https://reason.com/2023/02/07/biden-promises-to-stop-waiving-his-own-terrible-buy-american-mandates/
When I read a post like that, the thing that jumps out at me is that it kind of overlooks the actual human journalists participating in the journalism.
It focuses on this abstract notion of journalism, but that's just what we call humans engaging in that enterprise.
We do need journalists to step up and do better. I'd rather focus on that because I think it's a better way to find a solution to the problems we see than get lost in these abstractions of what journalism does or what the news does.
Journalists, be better.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
By law the DOJ answers to the president, which is the way it is held accountable through checks and balances.
The very notion that the DOJ is independent of its own chain of command is necessarily and literally proposing that it act outside of law, which again, clearly puts it as answerable to the president.
The rules say the answer to the president. When you talk about them being independent you are flat out saying the rules don't apply to this law enforcement organization.
We are of course free to amend the Constitution to give the police their own branch of government, but that sounds pretty sketchy to me, but either way until that happens it is flat out putting them above the law to say they are not bound by the existing legal structure in the US.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr So you're saying employees of the DOJ think the DOJ should be more powerful? :)
But no, they're wrong. The Constitution provides only three branches of the US government, and having the DoJ answerable to a president who can be held accountable for it is part of the bedrock principle of checks and balances of the US Government.
It's natural that they want more power. We should naturally be distrustful of giving more power to the police and letting them act so outside the law.
The topic of #CitizensUnited came up, and since I pulled up this quote, I'll share it here.
There has been SO MUCH misinformation about what CU actually said, so I always encourage people to read it directly, especially since Kennedy writes with a certain artistry.
Here's one quote that I always find to capture the essence of its reasoning, showing that it's all based on individuals associating, not so much corporations:
"[The rich always have access] yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate [or union] form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.
"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep558/usrep558310/usrep558310.pdf
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
No, I would say that the person responsible for the department is responsible for the department always and at any time.
And that is key to the design of the US government.
It is all on the head of the president. Intentionally, that is how we are supposed to hold those agencies accountable.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr @Teri_Kanefield
Right but that stuff has been debunked as a kooky conspiracy theory.
@radicalresilience Oh gosh, Fediverse is definitely very very inefficient. Any distributed platform has to be because it requires a ton of duplicated effort and overhead.
That's the tradeoff.
We've already seen a lot of instance admins expressing surprise that the platform takes a lot more resources than they expected, and that's just a symptom of it.
The way #ActivityPub and #Mastodon are designed they even melt down external webservers that aren't part of Fediverse. The system is just that unconcerned with conserving resources.
The GOP has been for sale like this for decades. They take huge donations from fossil fuel companies and then do their bidding to keep us addicted to fossil fuels. The GOP isn't even pretending to care about climate change and neither are their fossil fuel donors. The GOP-appointed supreme court justices made this kind of bribery legal exactly for these purposes. They have handed the government over to large business interests and the wealthy. What democracy?! GOP House Puts Big Oil's Revolving Door Into High Gear
But you're missing that voters elect and reelect these representatives.
This is democracy at work, for better or worse.
volkris
boosted
A deep dive into what happened with the Russiagate story is also an explanation of how major media outlets damaged the public's trust. https://reason.com/2023/02/03/getting-trump-was-more-important-to-some-journalists-than-getting-the-story-right/
@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr @joeinwynnewood
Never forget that the Department of Justice is 100% under the control of the president.
Under the design of the US government 100% of the executive branch is the responsibility of the president, and an enormous reason for that is so that we can hold the president accountable for everything that happens under his branch, and we can even impeach him for anything that happens under his branch of government. This is a critical element of the design of the US government.
Every single thing that Merrick Garland does is the responsibility of Biden. Again, that's just built into the design of the US government because if any underling misbehaves, including Merrick Garland, the president stands to be impeached over it.
Every time the press secretary talks about the independence of the DOJ she is doing a disservice to the design of the US government, and it is really really annoying to hear it because it is misleading the public.
The president is absolutely responsible for the Department of Justice. The president absolutely stands to be impeached if the DOJ does wrong. We absolutely need to hold him accountable, whether you happen to think they are doing a good job or a bad job, it is 100% up to the president to make sure it is a good job.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
The whole "fake electors" conspiracy theory is based on missing that the US legal system requires token gestures to stand up and present somebody who has been harmed for the sake of standing.
It's not some weird conspiracy theory; it's just a standard legal fiction.
People getting all upset over this particular element just really don't understand how legal system works in the US. And that's a shame because they are all too often falling for a conspiracy theory based on lack of understanding of how the legal system works.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr @Teri_Kanefield
Still looking for that specific statute.
@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr @joeinwynnewood
One problem is that so many of these accusations are based on misunderstandings of laws or the processes of electing presidents.
I'm always amazed that in the US we have people who every four years stop and ask, wait, how do we elect elect presidents again? How does the electoral college work?
We have so many people who have no idea how government actually works voting on government. But that's democracy for you.
Frankly, I suspect that the reason Biden hasn't prosecuted these people is because the cases against them are seriously deficient, that they actually didn't do things violating federal law, regardless of the sensationalistic reports that biased outlets are putting out.
Sometimes a person is not prosecuted simply because they didn't break laws and articles attacking them are just stupid and wrong.
@scottjenson @tchambers @pfefferle
I'd say there's a pretty big difference that ActivityPub actively transmits updates while RSS only passively provides them.
@KingDetrick @Oldfartrant @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Oh, in my experience the definition of "insurrectionist" these days means "person I disagree with."
We live in stupid times.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Well the thing is, if it's criminal then there will be a specific statute to reference. It wouldn't just be eyeballing the situation and giving an opinion.
So, what specific statutes would criminalize these actions even assuming they happened?
@KingDetrick @Oldfartrant @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Some kind of breakdown in the fediverse? The post was nothing but talking about the people on the floor of Congress, at least as it showed up on my instance here.
@KingDetrick @Oldfartrant @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
When the OP highlighted people being on the floor of Congress to debate anything, it seems to me that was focusing on disagreement with the election of these people by their voters.
If the point was just about the judicial process then I would not have mentioned Congress at all since it really has nothing to do with their election.
If somebody should be rounded up by the authorities and thrown in jail or whatever, that's a completely separate issue from voters voting for their representatives.
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:
