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
Well, I guess, let us know if you figure it out?
@DaemonFC@mstdn.social
Why do you think people pay so much to live in your parent's house?
@DaemonFC@mstdn.social
There is, after all, more to house pricing than murder rates...
@DaemonFC@mstdn.social
Yeah but house pricing ends up being so apples and oranges since neighborhoods change so much over 40 years.
In nearly half a century cities evolve and the demand for a particular property can change drastically.
Classy
The Social Security trustees have said year after year that the program is unsustainable, and that changes have to be made.
So what is your solution?
Once the money runs out, the program ends.
@Sharronatom63Gray @bryanculbertson
I mean, they grow weary of it too!
But it is their job to go ahead and accept cases and controversies where law might be violated and needs to be settled.
Very often you can tell in the opinions that the court would rather not be involved, especially when it is relitigating the same old thing, but that's just how government works.
For the sake of supporting democratic principles, the court must be willing to push back on the executive branch as needed, whether it wants to or not.
:) That's why I suggested using a different client to figure out where the problem was, Mastodon or the plug-in.
Anyway, good luck! I hope it works out for you, and for all of us.
@Sharronatom63Gray @bryanculbertson
The Supreme Court is NOT in the business of fairness. It's in the business of standing up for democratically crafted law, no matter how unfair those laws may be.
If we keep electing and reelecting lawmakers to represent us, and they keep passing unfair laws, then we really should knock that off.
But it's dangerous to say that the few, unelected, and unaccountable members of the Supreme Court should be overriding the democratic process when they don't agree with the outcome.
But that's the kind of issue that Congress is to take up, not the other two branches.
@FinchHaven@mastodon.sdf.org @GottaLaff @chrisgeidner
What exactly did you see them cite and then misinterpret? And how was it misinterpreted?
I mean, there was the minor detail of the advice and consent process between the executive and legislative branches of the US government, but nevermind that, it was definitely this guy.
Or aliens.
(insert the meme of the aliens guy I can't be bothered to look up for this)
I understand.
The Mastodon developers have made some... odd... choices in development that have held that particular platform back.
It could be that what you're seeing is considered a feature, not a bug, by the devs, so I just hope they're getting enough feedback to have them improve the platform as users need them to.
Fediverse has so much more potential.
I wish more people realized that with the structure of the US government, executive branch officials can't commit the US government to much of anything.
All too often people seem surprised when some promise from an executive branch official evaporates because it takes the other branches buying in to make it official.
Supposedly #Bluesky offers additional features that make it more decentralized, make it technically better than #Fediverse in accomplishing the goals Fediverse is supposed to be all about.
But I haven't been able to find much specific documentation on it so far, mainly broad strokes of what it was doing.
**We** can't.
**Congress** can, should we elect the people to Congress who are interested in doing that.
So far, no matter the political identities of who we elect to Congress, the law hasn't been changed in that way, though, probably because the home mortgage deduction is really popular.
But that doesn't change where we are today, with the peoples' representatives having already appropriated the money expected to be collected from these loans.
@holyramenempire @benda @mentallyalex
I can't help you with the judges. Judges rule differently pretty frequently especially when it comes to things with blurred lines like when a state actor is or is not part of the state.
I can answer your other question, though: we're in this position because the president decided to take an action that went against longstanding understanding of the law, and where Congress hasn't given clear legal authority.
So now the courts are left to clean up the mess, which can itself be messy, as we see.
Firstly, I only responded to @melancholic who asked the question about norms.
But since @codeddragon2023@mstdn.social has me muted, I'm more than happy to respond to the argument without fear of bothering them.
NO muting me doesn't show a consequence of me not opting for whatever (I honestly don't even understand what eggshells I was supposed to walk around there, really illustrating my point). It shows that people are in control of their own feeds, which is exactly what I was emphasizing in what I said about norms around here.
So I'd say Ryan here gets it exactly backwards, and demonstrates exactly why I think CWs should not be the norm.
For some reason that's lost to me they didn't want to see my toot, which is fine!, so they muted, which is fine!, and that's why we should empower people to tailor their own feeds to what they want to see instead of going for CWs.
Well then what is your point?
Yeah I don't know what you are trying to say when talking about undoing and order that would have been invalid in the first place. There's no such thing.
If the order wasn't valid, it wasn't valid, and at most it will just screw over a whole bunch of people who acted based on misinformation about their financial obligations.
Which really screws them over.
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:
