volkris @volkris@qoto.org
Since I guess everything is political these days, I'll identify as extremely liberal but without a home in US politics.
Mainly, there's so much misinformation out there that people in society have trouble even organizing into coherent political groupings. So I'd rather not talk about politics but instead focus on information and education. Nothing else matters until the bedrock of fact is buttressed.
But... people are always going to be wrong on the internet, as the saying goes.
So: Old man yells at clouds is a famous joke from The Simpsons, and it probably fairly describes what we do when venting on social media.
Just speaking into the void, since I figure it's an exercise in futility to conduct discussions on these platforms.
Joined Dec 2022
@swanksalot If you read the opinion, the Court didn’t gut the Clean Water Act, and it wasn’t just the right wing that came to its conclusion.
Instead, the Court reinforced the CWA, insisting that it be followed as passed, and even liberals on the Court pointed out that the EPA was claiming power that it didn’t have.
It was also a case about private ownership, not about business.
There’s so much wrong with that narrative, but you can read the opinion for yourself so you don’t have to trust such outlets.
Really? You think 1930s Germany ignored the political figures rising? I’d say the exact opposite happened, as figures gained more and more attention.
I think you have your history backwards.
That a president may choose to allow his subordinates to operate without close oversight is itself a reflection of the president’s authority over his branch.
And it does become problematic: we trust presidents to restrain this powerful law enforcement organization. Presidents traditionally letting them operate as they wish is giving them quite a lot of flexibility to exercise that power against the public.
But we need to be absolutely clear on this: The president is legally responsible for his Department of Justice, and should the DoJ misbehave the president must stand accountable and even impeachable over it.
It is an error for us to buy the idea that law enforcement can do what it wants without accountability for the president that it reports ti.
Part of the issue is that an awful lot of people acted like they thought they owned Twitter, and when Twitter changed out from under them they flocked over here, decided they owned this platform, and started making demands that everyone behave the way they wanted them to.
When you say the welcoming culture needs some work, that group of people is happy to be unwelcoming to those they don’t want on “their” platform. If you don’t share their vision for the platform, they don’t want you here anyway.
My point in saying this is sort of understanding what we’re working with.
You can admonish those people for being unwelcoming, but they’ll just say, “Good.”
There may be little that can be done to change Trump fans’ minds, but there are ways to stop throwing them meat and encouraging them.
Ignore Trump and he and his followers will wander off.
As the Internet adage goes, don’t feed the trolls.
In the US system of government, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President,” and since indictments are executive branch actions, they DO come from Joe Biden.
The Department of Justice is the agency that the president acts through for this kind of thing.
The DoJ is not a fourth branch of the US government. It is part of the president’s executive branch, part of the president’s administration.
Oh no, you are welcome to say whatever you want on social media. I’d never tell anybody what they should or shouldn’t post.
But what you are posting here just comes across as really at odds with what the court actually released. It seems like you are being misled by whoever you are listening to.
But yeah, just yelling at clouds. It’s social media, it doesn’t do any actual good. I don’t expect anybody to actually grow or examine their beliefs in this world.
It would be nice to be surprised, though.
Thomas didn’t issue a scathing dissent against voting rights. It sounds like you didn’t read what he wrote if that’s what you think.
He wrote a scathing dissent against what he presents as legally and logically flawed arguments laid out in the majority opinion.
Thomas isn’t against voting rights here. In fact, his dissent holds the Court to the VRA. He is against the position of the majority that runs counter to the Voting Rights Act.
Well, since Supreme Court opinions are publicly available, you can read Thomas’s reasoning for yourself, and you don’t have to be puzzled any longer.
Here’s the link to his conclusion, right from his own pen:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Well, FWIW, I’d say mainstream conservative talk never had much of an IF phase. They always assumed he would be.
I think you might be missing that just because they are part of fediverse doesn’t mean they can’t inject ads into the ActivityPub stream or apply whatever algorithms they see fit.
Their being part of fediverse means they can broadcast their ads more widely, which would help their business model.
Sure, a lot of people might block them, but every user who doesn’t block them is an additional bit of audience they can charge for serving ads to.
Thanks for linking directly to a copy of the opinion!
Far too few people do that, leading us to reading likely biased versions of what happened.
Also, good question as to how this would apply to hacking.
But the rules are that no matter who is Speaker of the House, the legislative branch doesn’t have the power to override constitutional amendments.
The problem is that the people we elected to Congress put in place loan repayment, so it’s really not up to either the Supreme Court or the president to make that decision.
If we want student loans to be forgiven then we need to talk to our representatives or even elect different ones.
As it stands now, the people have spoken through our representatives and the other two branches of the federal government should not be overriding that democratic process.
Ironically, that sort of approach flat out gives them the ability to control who you choose.
If you choose the guy based on who they attack, then they can tell you who to vote for by attacking who they want.
Ha! I think he has it backwards.
As I recall, one of the arguments the state was making was that it should not consider race, while the courts said the opposite, that race MUST be part of the process.
The court rejected the idea that voting practices should not discriminate on account of race, saying that the law requires discrimination to make up for past injustices.
Ha, FWIW, I go the other way.
I don’t think I say anything interesting, but I want to see what interesting people say.
I really wouldn’t give two wits as to whether Linus whatever see anything I wrote, but I am quite interested in seeing what he puts up.
I’m eternally critical of #ActivityPub being centralized around instances instead of decentralized down to focus on users.
It didn’t have to be this way, but this was the choice made by the developers.
And it might be one of the major ways that #Bluesky chooses a better path.
Since I guess everything is political these days, I'll identify as extremely liberal but without a home in US politics.
Mainly, there's so much misinformation out there that people in society have trouble even organizing into coherent political groupings. So I'd rather not talk about politics but instead focus on information and education. Nothing else matters until the bedrock of fact is buttressed.
But... people are always going to be wrong on the internet, as the saying goes.
So: Old man yells at clouds is a famous joke from The Simpsons, and it probably fairly describes what we do when venting on social media.
Just speaking into the void, since I figure it's an exercise in futility to conduct discussions on these platforms.
Joined Dec 2022
