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
I see that so often in so many contexts.
It's like reality just doesn't matter any more to so many people. They know what story they want to tell, and they'll tell it not only ignoring whether what they're saying is true, but even more importantly, apparently not even caring if their audience will know what they're saying isn't true.
I completely understand someone pushing an agenda using rhetoric that might not be completely true. I don't approve of it, but at least I understand the urge.
But to try to convince people without considering whether they might immediately see through the fib?
Well, I guess that's at least less dangerous for the audience.
Have you actually used Bitcoin lately?
I have, and even if I offer extremely low fees on my transactions they go through the chain just fine.
What you're claiming there just doesn't match real world experience.
No, it's more about continued technological advancement, discoveries in material science, new manufacturing techniques, and other advancements with direct applications to other industries that serve society.
And that's even before the space part.
@francisscottkey
@nurkiewicz perhaps "feedsin" isn't the best name.
I see what they were going for (Feeeds Iiiin Spaaace!) but this looks like feed sin where I'd expect a feed of NSFW content :)
@SNerd I mean, Biden's basically doing that through federal charges involving jail time...
@TwShiloh keep in mind that beginning interviews that way only encourage Trump's voters and play into his claims that the media is out to get him.
A whole lot of the country believes it to be flat out factually false that Trump ordered the assassination of his rivals, so starting an interview that way only makes the interviewer look unhinged to them.
@marynelson8 but the statement is itself paradoxical.
He's no violating criminal law if he's fulfilling his constitutional duty, which is the whole point of the claim.
So that's not the claim before the court.
So much reporting on Trump's claims of immunity miss the actual argument:
It's not that #Trump
can't be charged with stuff, but that charges related to a president carrying out presidential duties must target the office and not the individual personally.
A core question is whether Trump was actually carrying out presidential duties, but one can't raise that if they don't realize what the argument actually is.
@jawarajabbi You're missing that questions of ballot access come down to state law, not federal law, and definitely not the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about how states should conduct their elections.
Yes, SCOTUS interprets US constitutional law, but this is not a US constitutional question, and that's the whole point.
@jericevans except no, that's not what the court will rule on, and it's imperative to point that out.
The question right now is over ballot access, not the holding of office.
It's a completely different question, and even at that point it has a whole lot of assumptions where it can go wrong.
@sjgenco@me.dm No they begged a bunch of questions, asserting as fact a bunch of assumptions that are extremely debatable.
So yeah, you're kind of begging the question there.
CO needed to produce a ruling, and it did, but it wasn't a particularly well justified argument, and they knew it as they knew this was going to be subject to higher court review.
It doesn't get us anywhere to just deny the open question though.
@jawarajabbi That's not how the process works.
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to find that Trump's actions on January 6th disqualify him from the ballot. That's not a federal decision, it's a state decision, and so the federal court has no jurisdiction to come to such a conclusion.
The Supreme Court can review a state court process but that's as far as it can really go here. It does not have the jurisdiction to kick anybody off a ballot.
@jericevans Even if we go with that comment, you see how that comment doesn't say the Supreme Court will kick Trump off the ballot?
Because the Court doesn't have that authority, and that is a very important element of how the US government works, a very critical feature of the US system.
Even if the federal Court is reviewing the actions of the state Court, it's not the federal court that is acting there. It's still the state court.
@sjgenco@me.dm It has nothing to do with the GOP, though.
These matters of constitutional interpretation are not new. These are questions that have been looming for decades with different experts and authorities debating the meanings because they were unclear, heck, the authorities were begging for clarity specifically to head off a moment like this when we do need to know what the rules are.
The GOP didn't invent this.
Anybody nerdy enough to be plugged into the academic debates about this sort of thing would have been very familiar with these arguments for quite a while, long before Republicans discovered them.
@icare4america right?
It's so much easier for the politicians to run their campaigns against a public that doesn't know basic civics.
If more people were like me, knew how elections worked, then the politicians would have to work a lot harder. Thank goodness we're not in that world, though.
@leswarden it's a completely different situation.
SCOTUS was established by a written Constitution in a way that netanyahu didn't face, and if anything he was trying to bring their court closer to the US court rather than the other way around.
@Kozmo Believe it or not, and hear me out on this, sometimes Trump's legal representatives aren't exactly top notch and believable when they spout statements like this.
Like, these are awful people, why in the world would anybody put stake in what they are saying, especially given their track record of being wrong over and over.
@katrinakatrinka That's not how it works though. SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to cancel something like this.
Wrong branch of government.
@Nonilex You're begging the question, though, and saying that Trump had engaged in insurrection.
That is exactly one of the questions on the table.
@clacksee Well people are saying both and other things.
The problem is that this attempt to strike Trump from the ballot is a chain with many weak links, any one of which would doom that position.
That the amendment doesn't apply to the president is only one of a few different fatal flaws in the argument.
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:
