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 they are. The justices face impeachment should they misbehave in office.
They only keep their jobs so long as our elected representatives let them.
@Svetlana2@mastodon.social
Why can't self-driving cars be cited for traffic violations?
Certainly the traffic cameras automatically issuing violations don't stop to see whether there is a human behind the wheel.
Each car is owned and operated by someone, whether that operation involves a human on board or not.
Well I think it's the kind of thing where there's no perfect solutions, just different options each with its own pluses and minuses.
Just to throw out one downside to this suggestion, one off the top of my head, any official who knows his job is ending has less incentive to do good work to keep the job.
In this case, heaven forbid there was a justice all-too-willing to misbehave in office but for the threat of impeachment to hold them between the lines, a threat that basically disappears through the course of that final term.
But then yep, it could be that this proposal is the worst one but for all the others :)
I wonder what state experiments with their courts would show empirically.
@CarlG314 @BrennanCenter
Ha! I laugh because of how many people are spending so much time obsessed with these reports of wealth.
These folks probably like their money because they can exchange it for goods and services.
The audience here is obsessed with that wealth for other, less directly beneficial reasons.
It strikes me that while that dramatic headline might get Slate some clicks, Occam's Razor would council us to consider that there was no such conspiracy; Biden simply never had that legal authority in the first place.
Legislative procedure and reading of statute isn't as exciting as these stories of sabotage, but they're important when it comes to holding politicians accountable and not letting them distract with shiny rhetoric.
To be clear, the ruling did not limit federal authority to protect wetlands.
It pointed out that the feds never had the authority that they were claiming, as Congress did not grant it to them.
Congressional Democrats had all the time in the world to grant that authority if it was so needed, and they declined.
Yes! I often thought some of the lesser known songs on Some Nights had a distinctive Queen-for-a-new-generation vibe to them.
But how much could be explained by underdiagnosis of a group notorious for being skeptical of facets of modernity?
Just because you don't diagnose it doesn't mean it's not there.
Ha! Well right, these newer allegations are more directly tied to the actual governmental position, while the previous ones were more about what somebody was doing in their personal life.
Just out of curiosity, is the web client really so lacking on tablets?
It seems like these days web technology is so well developed that maybe we don't need a lot of these apps in the first place, especially with the lock-in they can bring.
*Ha, to be clear I don't mean the following personally and I'm also not claiming it's what's going on in this particular case. With that out of the way:*
One thing I often see is a person who seems to have a limited set of arguments, pretty much including both claims and responses, as if it is already gamed out and ready to be pantomimed to the predetermined conclusion.
The frustrating thing in those cases is that the person ends up trying to shoehorn every other discussion until one of the scripted arguments in their pocket.
It's kind of like a strawman argument, except there's a little more to it since the point is to apply the script, not to actually debate.
In the present case, there are some legit things to study from the differences between cities and surrounding areas, that this diagram reinforces pretty clearly.
Ideas about voters aside from that distinction represent pretty well trod pathways, which I'd say is even more reason not to revert to the same tired argument instead of more interesting observations about urban versus rural divides.
There's just not much to be gained from substituting the standard argument, especially without recognizing that the substitution is being made in the first place.
So it could very well be that if we were more clear about what's happening, that it's not the single senator holding up the process, then more senators might not feel so safe in backing the delay.
If we asked politicians to go on the record with whether they support the delay or not then there might be an overwhelming majority ready to stand up and move forward.
So long as we talk as if it's just one senator, though, it gives cover for all the rest to not stand accountable for their role in this.
Again, it sounds like you are trying to have an argument that isn't the one on the table here.
Great, if you want to talk about voters and democracy and the way votes are or are not counted in federal election processes, good for you. But that's not what the poster is talking about, so you are complaining about a point being made against the context that you're trying to substitute.
It's something of a strawman argument you're making.
The trick here is that so often in US law it authorizes a particular official to make a determination, handing them authority to ignore the rest of the law.
It's really about Congress handing authority to the executive branch without much oversight, and Congress should probably stop writing such laws.
This might be perfectly legal simply because Congress gave the president the right to ignore the export restrictions.
The guy really seems like a jerk, so I would hope this would not be a surprise to many people.
@TruthSandwich @freemo @freepeoplesfreepress
It's not misleading. It's simply showing something different from what it sounds like you would prefer it show.
You say it shows dirt, not people, but guess what defines a state, a boundary line drawn in dirt, not people.
If you would like to talk about populations instead of geography, great! But that is a completely different issue.
Well right.
All of the coworkers would say, "Well yeah... you drug me to a meeting for this?" because they already know what they're doing there.
The employee would be rightfully criticized for wasting people's time, getting them in a conference room just to tell them what they already know.
It's not an ego game. It's just the trade any employee makes a return for the pay they want.
It's important to point out that no one senator can block the business of the Senate if most of the Senate wants to proceed. They can just vote to move forward regardless of what he thinks.
And so in this case it's the entire Senate that is sanctioning the protest, including the Democratic majority.
It's important to point this out because it shows how the Senate as a whole is happy to indulge this sort of thing and score political points despite the implications.
Yeah so maybe it's something like a sports car versus an all-wheel drive SUV.
The zippy Wayland might be faster, but it's not as capable, but plenty of users were never doing the analog of taking it off-road anyway :-)
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:
