volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@janwlrvn

It's the old line: "The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from."

So practically it's more that ActivityPub has filed its standard of design at the w3c, but that's different from having diverse social media outfits standardize on that.

The Bluesky standard might just be better, once it matures and is standardized.

@harrymccracken @w3c

@theothersimo but you're the one proposing intolerance here and I'm saying we should indulge your intolerance for the sake of your higher goal!

You refuse to tolerate people who call to question basic human dignity, and that sounds fine to me. I'm willing to indulge your intolerance because it seems like it's on a solid ethical ground.

Tolerance may not be a virtue, and that's fine, let's say that and emphasize that it's why you're not putting tolerance above basic human decency.

It's why you're rejecting tolerance, and that's fine. But you undermine your own cause when clinging to tolerance that you're simultaneously rejecting.

@theothersimo yep, so proudly throw tolerance in the fire because being intolerant of Steve is more important than promoting tolerance.

Why claim to be tolerant when tolerance would have you tolerate such a person in your midst?

Forget tolerance. Kick Steve to the curb!

@Drdind but that's not what the ruling said or did.

The problem is that so many people sat dumbfounded because their news sources misinformed them about what was going on, painting an upsetting picture that didn't really make sense, because it wasn't an accurate representation of current events.

The SCOTUS ruling was mainly that a lower court erred in its interference in the election process. It is, after all, a court of appeals in this sort of case, and was never asked whether to hand the presidency to anyone.

With accurate framing the ruling makes much more sense and would have left fewer people dumbfounded.

@theothersimo again I repeat, it's fine if this is your solution or the best solution, but in that case you should proudly own it.

Proudly say you're putting basic human dignity over tolerance, that tolerance is simply not as important as shaping a better society.

That just emphasizes how important the task is to you.

Why not?

@Nonilex the problem is that this isn't really about abortion at all, but about the administration botching a legally proscribed process.

The real question before the Court here is whether the Biden administration gets to ignore the law and sanction sale of a drug.

Once again Biden has made a mess of things and looks to others to clean things up, and he won't be held accountable for it.

@theothersimo if that's your goal of tolerance then it's the wrong tool for the job.

It's like saying the goal of riding this bike is to get across the country as quickly as possible. That may indeed be your goal, but you should consider using a car or a plane instead, as the bike isn't so great at traveling quickly.

Allowing fascists to organize and such is tolerant. One may be understandably opposed to those things, but that's the reason to own intolerance.

YES! Throw tolerance in the fire! It's not what you're really after, so why insist on claiming to be tolerant here?

@leswarden The US and Israeli systems are so different in their designs that the two situations aren't really comparable.

And in fact that was part of Netanyahu's complaint, as he pushed for a court that was a bit more law based in the absence of a strong constitutional framework.

The US constitutional framework, and its defining of the role of the SCOTUS, is exactly the distinguishing factor at the heart of the whole argument, and the one involving Trump as well.

@Morning1

@leswarden The problem is, since the Supreme Court is a body of law it can't let considerations like that influence its rulings.

Anyway, the more important point is that it really doesn't matter if Trump wants to be a dictator. The US system simply doesn't give presidents that option.

He can want it all he wants, but it says useful as wanting to flap your arms and fly around the room.

It's just a moot point.

@thisismissem but it sounds like they aren't living up to the plan, then.

If Australia is transferring people to places with abuses and crimes then it's not transferring them to safe third countries.

Maybe the better argument is that the plan may sound good but maybe it's not practically workable. There's no sense even discussing whether it's a good plan or not if it can't actually be implemented, and that can be the real objection to it.

@Teri_Kanefield It seems a bit problematic to equate sports with prosecution.

The ability for governments to punish and even harass people, all too often innocent people, is quite a bit different from watching two teams play some game on the field.

I'd say there's a pretty strong moral argument that we shouldn't be quick to cheer on prosecutors in general just because they may be pretty good at getting people punished.

@geekyonion More critically, prosecutors have the leeway to pick and choose cases based on basically any reasoning or motivation they would like, for example as response to political winds even if they know the case is weak or even outright false.

That's a huge part of the system, that the courts are independent of the prosecutor because we don't rely on prosecutors to only prosecute fairly and effectively.

To be sure, part of the picture is that if a prosecutor is doing the wrong thing they can be disciplined for that, but even there the definition of the wrong thing isn't so clear as just win/loss ratios. It ends up being subjective and political.

So in the end yes, prosecutors have a lot of leeway, and they may consider all sorts of factors ranging from the strength of the case through the expense of the prosecution through the chances of being disciplined for how they approach the case after the fact.

@Teri_Kanefield

@theothersimo that line of argument always struck me as pretty flawed, not because it's a paradox, but because it's logically contradictory.

Yes, a tolerant person tolerates.

No, there's no particular reason to pursue the contradiction for the sake of some reciprocity condition.

Instead it sounds like accepting a weaker claim for the sake of pursuing bias confirmation.

In other words, I would say that if you believe reciprocity is so important then let's just be honest and flat out say you are giving up tolerance for the sake of that goal.

@dangoodin

@ilovecomputers I think if they want a flat bottom like that, I don't see the point of using a wok in the first place.

Seems like they might as well just use a normal saute pan.

Still an interesting video.

@shayz0rz I just think it means she is off in her own little world, so there's no point asking her about it, because anything she might say is just part of some fantasy at best.

@shayz0rz but my point is that I don't know what party she is with anymore.

She's pretty much cast out of the Republican party so when you talk about how her party got here, I don't think she has a party at this point, not in any practical way.

Her story is really more about her personally, the choices she made, how she got where she is today, rejected by pretty much any political base that she might otherwise have.

It seems like pretty much everybody has told her she can fuck all the way off forever, and she earned that.

@shayz0rz keep in mind that mainstream Republicans and conservatives and right wingers reject Liz Cheney as one of them.

@Grandalf@aus.social Well not quite.

SCOTUS can basically do anything it wants--such is the nature of an independent judiciary--but most importantly in this case the Court is free to go through common procedure of saying that appellate courts should first rule and then maybe the Supreme Court will review the appellate court rulings.

That would actually be the normal course of business so it is definitely on the table.

But it also doesn't make a president a king to say that they are immune from future prosecution.

Presidents are still subject to impeachment and removal from office, which a king is certainly not, and presidents still have to deal with the other two branches of government.

They are not kings regardless of what the Supreme Court might say here.

The US government was specifically set up with checks against that kind of thing, and it's just not an option on the table. It does no good to sensationalize this legal dispute.

Really it only plays into Trump's hands as his supporters love this stuff.

@GottaLaff