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
@SrRochardBunson @ArenaCops @morganalafee @kaydenpat
Well that's a silly thing to say.
All you need to know is something changed? You don't need to know what it changed to, or why, or where it changed from? All of that is irrelevant?
The statement isn't even correct. The precedent had been changed a few times over the years, and the shifting precedent was part of the problem. It was never workable, which is why it had already been overturned as they tried to make an unworkable position work.
If all we need to know to judge your argument is a false claim about change, well then yeah, it does show how faulty your position is.
@morganalafee @SrRochardBunson @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
Oh just listening to a whole lot of people going on with such nonsense.
But all answer your question, no I'm not saying that.
If you are saying that women don't exist except as chattel, well that's quite the claim, hopefully you have more to back it up than most of the people that I see squawking about it.
It's funny that this is talking about looking for internal communication when I remember watching the health officials having their teleconferences broadcast right on YouTube where their own council of Independent experts told them that their processes were too rushed and without enough data to back up what they were telling the public.
So they stopped holding those meetings.
But this was all public. I assume those videos are still available on YouTube where they posted them.
@morganalafee @SrRochardBunson @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
If you would like...
@morganalafee @SrRochardBunson @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
Occam's razor would probably have us conclude that women are not chattel because that is a simpler proposal than some wacky convoluted rhetoric insisting that we have a system by which they are.
Come on, that's just a moronic thing to bring up.
It is a stupid claim wheeled out by politicians who are counting on the ignorance of the American people, counting on people to avoid educating themselves and actually reading directly from primary sources what is actually going on.
It is at best propaganda. At worst it's just really really lazy political rhetoric.
There's a long, long history saying otherwise.
Well to start with, simply legally, Congress is absolutely not bound to anything the president might put in his budget. Congress is absolutely free to completely ignore the president's budget proposal as they begin working on their appropriations. That is a stark reality.
But getting into the politics of it, there's a long history of presidents proposing budgets that their own parties generally ignore and often enough outright reject as the congressional membership look to garner favor with their own constituencies regardless of national benefit.
A representative seeks to get reelected by their voters regardless of what the president might think about some campaign promise the representative might be making.
We see this every cycle in modern times regardless of the division of party between the different branches and the different houses.
Both legally and practically the president might as well use his budget proposal as a campaign stunt, so every single one does.
@ArenaCops @SrRochardBunson @morganalafee @kaydenpat
Sounds like they are stretching pretty far to make an article.
Once you start trying to do that sort of psychoanalysis of a particular Justice based on his votes it opens the door to all sorts of kind of out there speculation about motivation. All sorts of things can be read into tea leaves.
I don't think it's particularly helpful.
Well, it's dead on arrival since Biden, like all recent presidents, uses their budget as a political statement instead of any serious effort to find a workable proposal.
That's just how the US system was designed to work, with the peoples' representatives deciding where the country wants to go, not the unilateral dictates of a president.
I don't know why anyone would think that's strange. In my experience I'm reminded daily that journalists aren't experts in the fields they're reporting on, and really don't themselves know what they're talking about.
Heck, these days it seems to have become fashionable in #journalism to produce articles and segments where a reporter flat out says they don't know why something or other, as if their own lack of understanding is the news.
This this evening I heard such chattering come out of APM's #Marketplace and I had my daily sigh at the state of reporting in the country.
@SrRochardBunson @morganalafee @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
Dobbs recognized legal arguments that have had bipartisan buy-in for generations.
If you insist on this conspiracy, then my, it's a massive one. Who has the money to pay off those hundreds if not thousands of apparently corrupt jurists from across a broad swath of American legal thought?
Or... maybe the argument was simply the correct and reasonable conclusion?
Occam's Razor applies.
It's almost like he is governing a state with very diverse views and populations instead of being a conservative ideologue.
It's almost like seeking compromise and consensus instead of just fighting losing battles is the way to win.
@SrRochardBunson @morganalafee @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
That's a nice conspiracy theory you've got there.
It really doesn't square with what the Supreme Court actually rules, but don't let that get in the way of a good story.
Well no. A large part of the complaint here is that the president's actions violate exactly the plain meaning of the statute. And that seems right to me as I read the statute and compare it against what the president did.
I'm actually a huge fan of applying the plain meaning of statutes and demanding that Congress fix them when their intent was different.
In this case, as I watch that specific point argued, the president doesn't seem to be in the right.
Well that's a silly thing to say.
Conservatives thinking critically of critical race theory is an indication of their critical thinking, not a sign of being against critical thinking.
This image is flat out false. Their tax rate is much higher.
The question before the Supreme Court is not whether the student loan bailout is fair or not. The question is whether a president can act unilaterally against the laws passed by our democratic system.
I mean, it was the GOP that expanded the standard deduction so that the poor will get a tax break...
Yeah that's right. I'm a troll because I actually quote the Supreme Court when talking about what the Supreme Court may have said.
Be warned.
Facts, man, they troll you, they are inconvenient, sometimes they don't say what sensationalized media outfits try to sell, and that's annoying.
The ruling says the exact opposite, it says that because the wealthy elite have a fire hose of cash, the rest of us need a way to compete with that, so the ruling is 100% about addressing that issue.
Kennedy is explicit about this in the ruling.
In the ruling he points out that because of that fire hose the rest of us need more ability to compete, so because of that fire hose the government cannot stop us from joining forces and trying to compete against it.
The entire point of the CU decision is to counter the fire hose.
@lymphomation @TCatInReality @MaierAmsden
What in the world does Fox have to do with us reading the opinion directly from the Supreme Court's website?
What are you on about?
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:
