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
@realTuckFrumper not rewrite. Investigate.
Psaki here is insisting that the rush to judgment of the moment be maintained even as we've learned more since then that call to question a lot of the narratives that were streamed out in the heat of the moment.
Narratives that are convenient for her side, so it's obvious why she wants to maintain them.
But that's exactly why we should be looking to see whether the evidence that has come out since actually supports or refutes those stories.
@lauren indeed.
But just in case one might get the impression, I just felt the need to get ahead of it.
@BetaCuck4Lyfe Hi welcome to social media. We're all full of shit here.
But that doesn't mean we can't call out others that are also full of shit, from Trump to CREW.
@lauren That's not what Nikki Haley claimed.
@bigheadtales SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to unilaterally strike down an act of Congress.
That's just not how the US system of government works.
@BetaCuck4Lyfe quite the opposite. I think a lot of these efforts are making him closer to election which is a large part of why I'm speaking out against them!
For goodness sake, stop playing his game. Making him a martyr is pretty much the only reason he is currently even possibly going to be elected.
The guy is a loser. All of this nonsense distracts from the line we should be emphasizing, that he is a loser.
That's really the only sort of language that would break Trump from his base. If they realized what a literal loser the guy was then he would be deflated and he would go away.
Everything else only makes Trump supporters feel vindicated in their stupid opinions.
@ShingoMouse we really need to be very clear that this is a scam, they are just trying to take your money
@bigheadtales It can't.
It doesn't have that authority.
It's like, you might as well be talking about me personally inserting myself into the legislative process.
No, that's not how the US government works.
@daveystew@mstdn.social my bet is that he'd simply say the state didn't follow a legal procedure for excluding and/or that Trump isn't constitutionally prohibited.
There wouldn't be any contradiction there.
Yes, the state can exclude candidates. But it has to follow the rules. And these states didn't follow their rules in excluding candidates.
@bigheadtales SCOTUS doesn't implement law.
Wrong branch of government.
@nanowiz as I listen to conservatives, no, it's really not.
In my experience mainstream conservatives have spent a lot of time talking about how a pardon doesn't require or involve an admission of guilt.
Whether you or I believe that to be true is not the point. It's what THEY believe, and so it's not an admission.
In fact, as I recall, Pence was pilloried for being skeptical of this very issue. He thought it would be an admission, and conservatives attacked him for it.
@lauren agreed, especially as that helps further processing handle the content as the particular end viewer wants it handled.
Black pillars let the end device know that there's no content there, so if a wrongheaded ( ;) ) viewer wants the display to zoom or stretch or whatever, it knows how to do it.
Blurred versions make the display think there might be content there so it can't help the end viewer reach the experience they want.
@bigheadtales I didn't say any votes were being blocked. The voting process is certainly being interfered with, though.
And that's independent of whether you've bought into the claims about constitutional ineligibility.
@downey well, there is the detail that other instances subscribe in the course of federation.
So the push is really fulfilling a request on the part of the original server.
@taco that's not what happened, though.
The 14th doesn't stop anyone from running for anything, so it can't be used to on its own bar someone from running.
And that's not even getting into all of the issues of misinterpretation of the amendment itself.
Might as well use the 2nd Amendment to end elections altogether. It's not what the amendment says, so all bets are off at that point.
@mjg59 seems consistent to me, though.
If we managed to break into the ISS why would anyone think this guy wouldn't be able to break into our event?
@phiofx@hachyderm.io
Well, don't overlook the fact that different social media users simply want different experiences.
Not all of them seek that space to bond, and platforms sought to serve those users as well.
Consider the vastly different experiences of Facebook and #Twitter, based on everything from their web interfaces through the types of media they supported.
Users still chose to engage with different platforms based on their own diverse wants.
I'd say the real lesson for #Fediverse is to focus on empowering users to shape their experiences as they see fit, to avoid any sort of one-size-fits-all design choices.
But this is a hobby horse of mine.
I'd say the objective shouldn't be to create that space you describe, but rather to give users the power to create the spaces that serve them best.
@kegill the arguments aren't secret, though.
For years people have been pointing out that the language in the 14th Amendment might be misunderstood and that needed to be hashed out before it actually came into play.
It only looks "so applicable" to folks who aren't aware of the longstanding counterarguments that call to question whether it actually is applicable.
I think a lot of these experts are oversimplifying for the public when they know full well that it's more complicated.
@bigheadtales if it's a different discussion why bring it up?
I don't consider my personal opinions to be particularly interesting or relevant, but to the extent that I'm in favor of blocking voters' say, I own it.
@dougiec3 they're just entirely different cases ruling on entirely different types of issues coming from different lower courts based on different parts of law.
So no. It depends on the merits of each case.
They will be treated differently because they are different.
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:
