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
US Supreme Court Rules Against Racial Gerrymandering
Keep in mind that the way the US government is designed, the Supreme Court doesn't get to pick and choose things to look into. It is only able to consider cases that other people submit to it.
So the Supreme Court doesn't get to go out looking for things to fix. Somebody would have to file a lawsuit that would go through lower courts and eventually be appealed up to the Supreme Court.
If we don't like the laws, then let's stop reelecting the same cruddy lawmakers to our legislatures.
There's no sense blaming the Court for the crappy laws passed by the people we keep actively going to the polls to empower.
Ah. Personally I am pretty annoyed by the direction they are going with packaging, but meh, not yet annoyed enough to give up on them.
Why not?
No, Reddit will not truly be abandoned, because so many of it's users really just don't have an interest in the recent events that are making some people so irate.
They're just not interested in that fight, so it doesn't really show up on their radar, so it won't influence their use of the platform.
Well from what I'm hearing that is the plan B.
A lot are hoping for a plan A where the prosecution's case just falls apart once they get to trial, if not before.
I think a lot of people who don't really understand the legal system are getting some high hopes, just as the people who didn't understand the election system got their hopes up in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
I've been really wondering about that but haven't had time to sit down and look into how Lemmy interfaces with the rest of the ActivityPub world.
My quick glance is at it looks like Lemmy is effectively a walled garden even though it uses standard protocols, which would be disappointing.
Well, or being better informed about how the US government functions.
Trump world simply replies that the information wasn't classified.
US Politics Andy Biggs
Because people voted for him and he won his election.
Well of course it's an acquiescence to the MAGA Republicans. That's democracy. The whole idea is that we acquiesce to the wants of the people as they vote.
You are welcome to take the position that democracy should be overruled here, but just realize that's what you're doing.
If you are comfortable with depriving people of their chosen representatives, that's fine. Just make sure you realize that's what you're calling for.
Personally I think that promotes civil war, so if that's your motivation then it is counterproductive.
Meh, it's the difference between legal and political processes.
If the people vote for a criminal, well, that's democracy for you. And the issue of whether that person should be prosecuted and punished is a completely different question.
The issue is that it runs into conflict with the democratic process.
These people were elected, so it's not something that should be done lightly to overrule elections by refusing people their chosen representation.
Where, specifically, do you believe they went wrong?
I think this is one of those cases where the healthiest path forward isn't to deny the reaction or backlash, but rather to say yes, it is reaction and backlash, it is destructive reaction and backlash, and to criticize it.
Otherwise it can get sidetracked into an argument over what happened instead of focusing on the antisocial aspect of what did happen.
I think they have generally been calling on Trump to drop out for a good while now, more or less flat out saying he should not be president again.
However, keep in mind that the Republicans are benefiting from this drama as talking about it appeals to their base.
The candidates benefit from seeing Trump stay in and keep this stuff alive as a talkingpoint.
Often news outlets and commentators seem to try to oversimplify their stories into black and white narratives with clear teams, but when you actually watch the opinions come out, there will often enough be more than two groupings AND different justices will show up on different sides throughout the term.
Just for one example, the recent EPA case was portrayed by maybe as those dastardly right-wing justices acting, but the actual case had unanimous agreement among all justices that the EPA didn't have the power it was claiming.
It's just an example of how so often the stories we receive go really off the rails to invent dramatic, personal framing that doesn't really match the reality.
I'm quoting directly from the opinion here. There is no room for disagreement about the words on the page.
For example, the members associated with the left-wing of the Court agreed that the EPA was acting in violation of the CWA.
"ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined."
Yep.
An awful lot of people don't follow things like #SCOTUS opinions closely enough to know they're being sold a narrative that just doesn't match the record.
The liberal vs conservative description of the Supreme Court makes for dramatic headlines, but the decision record of the Court doesn't really match that naive narrative.
Earlier: @Brian_Riedl: "The 'conservative Supreme Court justices are partisan ideologues voting in lockstep' crowd sure is quiet today." #SCOTUS ...
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:
