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
You're stating that the states have equal representation.
You're layout out exactly what I'm pointing out.
Every state has exactly the same two representatives.
The incentive is to seek re-election.
Each member is to do his best to do what his constituents would want him to do, and hopefully that will lead to good outcomes. But in the end it's up to voters who decide who to empower and who to re-empower based on their performances.
@SteveThompson wow, the article accuses justices of playing fast and loose even as it itself engages in exactly that.
For example, concluding that the organization doesn't represent real people because of where and when it filed paperwork? The one has nothing to do with the other.
Mainly, though, this is a giant case of begging the question.
I get that the author wishes for different outcomes. Understandable! But this is not the way to get there.
it does get clicks, though. Thanks Slate.
@hulavikih I say this as an open borders kind of guy who WANTS to see more immigration, but there's a lot to be skeptical of in this article, a lot of loose ends that make the proof pretty weak.
For example, the highlighted comparisons against 2017 estimates are quadrupley suspicious as they are 1) relative to 2) an estimate from 3) many years ago 4) before the majorly disruptive pandemic.
Unfortunately I don't think many are going to have their minds changed by this article.
Perhaps USA Today forced them to cut a lot for brevity and they cut too much.
@vy at this point mainly because you don't seem to be willing to provide any solid support for the claim.
That does lead to me not thinking that you're correct.
That you'd rather deflect into psychoanalysis of me just further solidifies that impression.
@politico This rhetoric about bailing out #McCarthy is a bit disingenuous.
If the House wants to keep him as speaker they can. If they want to shut down business in the chamber they can do that too.
To focus on this drama about a bailout is to kind of distract from the real implications of members voting to shut down the legislative process when there's so much that needs to get done.
@DotardTed I don't think it sounds like worry so much as acceptance of the role he has to play.
It sounds to me like #McCarthy accomplished his goal of giving speakership a shot, and now it's up to the #House whether they keep him in the position or not.
He did what he wanted to do, and the rest is hardly worth worrying about too much.
If House members are so off the rails that they'd vote to halt business in the chamber, well, this is a problem solving itself for him.
@vy Indeed!
Better for me to ask why you believe what you believe than to just assume.
Yes, it can be tedious to try to learn, but I'm a patient person.
@vy I do so enjoy when people tell me what I think ::eyeroll::
But again, this isn't about me. I'm asking what you think, and I'm asking how you support your claims here.
That has nothing to do with me, it's your point that you're trying to make, and one would hope you would be able to provide solid support for your beliefs.
If you can't, it seems like maybe you should reevaluate your position. But again that has nothing to do with me.
Meh, trust is nice and can help grease skids, but it's not required. The Rules of the House are there for use regardless of trust.
Members can force action regardless of the Speaker if they have to, so this matter of trusting McCarthy is a bit overblown.
And that's not even getting into whether he can actually be trusted since we don't know what happens behind the scenes and what agreements he might be 100% upholding despite what politicians are saying publicly.
Keep in mind that McCarthy's actions can often be seen as protecting members from votes they don't want to take, so he might be doing what all speakers do and satisfying his members that he negotiated with.
It's all quite the facade, but it's up to them to make it work since they're on the inside.
@cdarwin well it's not about giving courts more influence but rather giving Congress more authority.
The courts only defer to Congress in that balance of checks on executive power.
It needs to be made explicit that this would also be Democrats being united in a decision NOT to keep the House operating.
For better or worse.
Why would I trust conservative legal scholars, particularly if they are identified with a bias so intently, when I can go straight to the document?
It's like, either I can look outside and see that it's not raining for myself, but hey, let's go trust these umbrella sellers instead!
If these people have their agenda so front and center, that doesn't make them more trustworthy compared to our own eyes.
We can clearly see that the amendment says nothing about running for office. Anyone saying otherwise is making stuff up that's not in the clear text of the amendment.
I mean yes, that's the reason the entire House might stay with McCarthy, but that's an across the issue aisle.
But here we have mainstream Republicans calling for cooperation across the aisle to maintain government funding in the face of the hardliners like Gaetz, and I just feel like they directly reject what you're saying here.
Yes, every party, and every individual, wants to get their way without having to compromise, but when that's not an option Republicans often seem willing enough to work across the aisle.
The votes for the past few weeks show that.
Well, nothing's going to change so long as instructors keep accepting those terms of employment, maybe undervaluing their own contributions.
Colleges are going to keep paying poorly because they can.
I realize educators tend to be very personally invested and committed to teaching, but at the same time, if a college is placing such low value on their labor then they should consider going where they'll be more valued, whether in private industry or media company or whatever.
Those talents are needed elsewhere, after all. Just look at the sorry state of reporting these days.
But the low paid positions are going to continue so long as people keep standing to accept them.
Because it's not really up to the SCOTUS. That's not how the US legal system works.
You're giving the Court way more power than it actually has and the complaining about the way it wields the power. Really, the Court just doesn't have this power.
In this step in the election process it's all up to states as they run their elections. The Supreme Court has no authority to interfere at this point.
@jimlil a problem (in my view at least) is that even if all these things tended to start that way, the attitudes I see on this platform tend to not only accept but embrace the homogeneity in ways I'm not sure were common in other examples.
There's a real lack of diversity here, and there are a LOT of people cheering it, resisting growth and handwringing over the possibility that things might change and diverse perspectives might show up in feeds.
From what I've seen that often feeds into the "we don't need growth" stance.
I don't think it's healthy.
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:
