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
This headline is pretty far off from what the ruling actually said, so it's funny to interpret your post as saying NYT is still corrupt and illegitimate.
Accurate, though.
Republicans rarely contend with the fact that so many things they're concerned about happened in Trump's administration, under his supervision.
It's nice when they start noticing, but since the indictments came about I've been seeing it come up much less.
This is a misunderstanding how the court works, though.
Alito wasn't at all weakening the powers of the EPA. The Court was pointing out that the EPA didn't have those powers in the first place.
It's up to Congress to delegate power; Alito doesn't have that authority.
It's a dramatic story based on confusing branches of the US government.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength...
I think we can criticize underdeveloped and impractical standards without resorting to logical contradiction.
Well it varies state by state.
SCOTUS says merely that the legislature has to follow state law, whatever it may be for the particular state.
Empowerment of the democratic branch is democracy-denying?
There is plenty to question about the independent state legislature take on things, but it goes a bit offbase to go that direction.
@ubergeek @supernovae@universeodon.com
The actor is hostile?
That just comes across as namecalling, seeking to ban someone based on a personal vendetta.
They're justices, not priests.
Morality has nothing to do with looking at the laws passed by the democratic process and answering questions about what they say.
Heck, they would be violating their office should they put personal moral qualms ahead of what the peoples' representatives wrote into law.
But that position of Kavanaugh is pretty unsurprising if you follow his opinions and statements at oral argument.
It's only questionable reporting that promotes this myth about how he reasons.
Wow, no, this reporter didn't understand the issues or implications in the case.
This wasn't about gutting voting rights but rather about who gets to decide state voting issues within the normal bounds of voting rights.
The voting rights applied regardless of who was calling the shots. The legislature would have had no additional ability to intrude on those rights; legislature would have been equally bound by them.
It's like figuring out who gets to call the play in a football game. The rules of the game still applied no matter who was calling the play.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Careful, as you might be getting that exactly backwards.
It would breach the church state line to deny funding on account of religion.
If the state has no business sticking its nose into religion, that means it doesn't really have a role in declaring religion to be anathema.
Seriously, that was my takeaway from the recording that came out.
It didn't really tell us anything we didn't already know, except that wait, #Trump actually seems to have read those briefs and had a working knowledge of the papers handed to him?
I was honestly a bit surprised.
I mean, the group's idea is that labels harm the democratic process, so it's kind of silly to complain that it's not open to being labeled.
@CynAq@evil.social
But, as we can see, questioning of trustworthiness has nothing to do with fact. Anyone can level accusations and call trustworthiness into question. ProPublica is a master at that, profiting off of muckracking.
The Court can't control what the press is saying about them. That's really up to us.
All the Court can do is focus on the jurisprudence in their jurisdiction, and hope the public sees through sensationalist press outfits.
The Court hands down decisions. What we think of them is clearly beyond their control.
#Alito: a reasonable person wouldn't buy into the misleading ad hominem attacks ProPublica thrives on
Ah, but Sam, ProPublica doesn't sell to reasonable people, as the braying of #Fediverse demonstrates so well.
It's a tech company. Successful business models are optional :)
But seriously, well we'll see. The company can do all sorts of things ranging from putting firewalls between markets through processing the data in ways that are compliant with the data protection mandates, even if that makes the global enterprise less successful.
One thing I notice in your comment is that you focus on the "gifts from a billionaire" which doesn't really have relevance instead of the size of the gift, which might.
It really illustrates how manufactured and misleading these stories are, how much they focus on ad hominem issues while leaving more relevant facts aside.
Let's look at his actual discharge of his duties, his actual reasoning presented in SCOTUS opinions, not this yellow journalism.
Well, I'd question firstly whether Discord is all that useful in the first place. Maybe you don't need it or an alternative to it at all?
And yes, I say this as someone who just never figured out why people like it, so I wonder how much of it is people feeling pressured to join just because that's where the group is.
You call it an end run, but that sounds like the point, right? The EU policies are about not transferring data out, so they're not transferring data out?
It doesn't sound like circumvention but rather like complying with the spirit and intention of the regulation.
@JohnMFlores @daringfireball
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:
