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
In reality, the Supreme Court has all sorts of choices here. There are a ton of different things it could do since it is operating within the context of the judicial system. It could even invent brand new things never seen before.
It needs to be emphasized that the question before them is a question of how courts should operate. It's not a question of, I don't know, whether Congress can pass a law restricting the freedom of speech about endangered species opinions of the executive branch. That gets a bit more thorny.
But here the question is directly one of whether the courts can or cannot consider certain complaints against Trump. That is 100% within the wheelhouse of the Supreme Court.
What should it do? Honestly, whatever the justices think is right. If they don't want to get involved in this they are fully within their right to ignore the case entirely. Maybe they think the lower court got it right, maybe they just want to punt.
But at this point this is completely up to the majority of the nine.
@mousey are you asking what works for social media or for health policy?
They are very different problems.
@amgine Yeah, Abbott is absolutely playing political games, since he is a politician, and that's part of his job 🙂
Although I really wish we would all push back on some of these oversized claims about what he's doing. When we say things like he's thumbing his nose at the supreme court we are playing into his hands, building him up to his supporters, when really he's not being nearly that much of a champion for them.
As for the arrest and charge, he's no different from any other person in the country.
The federal government can issue and arrest warrant and take him into custody, and his position has governor is absolutely no shield against that.
That is, assuming he actually has violated federal law, which I'm not sure he has.
@amgine Well you might be fully aware of this, but for anyone else coming across it, a lot of people don't realize just how limited the judicial branch is, by design.
By design they are a branch with limited authority, limited jurisdiction in the US system of government.
A lot of people get frustrated by what the courts do or don't do without realizing that the courts lack authority or jurisdiction to go farther.
All part of the checks and balances in the US system.
Based on everything I hear, everybody agrees that laws do and should apply to everyone.
The problem is that different people have different ideas about what the laws are in the first place and in the second place what has happened that the laws should apply to.
But do you have a specific example in mind saying otherwise?
@keefeglise you say that, but I had a lot of trouble coming across a bluesky code.
In any case, I think the real turning point is going to be the addition of missing features to that platform. The developers over there say a bunch of features are in the works, and they have been surprisingly slow to emerge, but once they do it will be a much better platform for users than it is now.
I think that's really what a lot of users are waiting on.
@amgine No need to reach for the sensational charges like that when, if the accusations are true, the feds could arrest him on much more solid violations of law.
Although I generally think so many of the accusations are hyperbole.
It's not a question of whether it has gotten too little or too much news coverage, but the big issue is that the news coverage it has gotten has been so often flat out factually wrong or at least misleading.
Just for example, there has been so much misreporting about what the Supreme Court actually ordered.
And so there has been way too much coverage that accuses Abbott of resisting Supreme Court orders that don't actually exist.
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com but that statement is factually false.
That the president has no role in the process means he could not have injected himself into it, and he didn't. Because it was not possible in our system of government.
That it was not possible doesn't mean it's a big deal that he did it, because it was not possible for him to have done it, which discounts the accusation on its face.
@JustOneMoreThing@mindly.social
It's worse than that: mainstream Republicans are saying x, y, and z aren't in the bill even though other Republicans are pointing out that it is and the text of the bill is there for us all to read.
Well, I think it's worse. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder whether it's worse to play politics like that or to deny reality.
Well, let's see the offer and see what happens.
I think it would be something to see critics of Israel try that just for the challenge if nothing else.
The latest in #USPolitics for the many on this platform that never seem to have any exposure to #Republicans is that different factions of that side have contradictory claims about what's in the text of the immigration bill introduced to the #Senate.
One side says that the bill is awful because it does x, y, and z, while the other side says those things are emphatically not in the bill.
One side calls out the other for having supported the bill without reading it even as they themselves vociferously reject the bill... without reading it.
It's a really sad thing to watch, but in order to understand this moment in domestic politics one has to know that this intra party dispute over matters of fact is looming large.
And my impression is that it's really not about #Trump, at least not directly, even though he seems to be trying to claim credit for the tides that were moving already, as he often does.
From what I see it's more about conservatives who have no idea how the US government actually works and so had no ability to properly judge legislation, and so threw a giant hissy fit when they didn't get their uninformed way.
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com Well it's not really about Trump, as mainstream Republican outfits wrote off the bill long ago.
This sounds like yet another case of Trump seeing which way the winds are blowing and trying to claim credit for what was already in the works.
@hosford42 that is literally not what happened.
Yes, Republicans tend to be pretty dumb, what of it?
It doesn't at all change what the Supreme Court actually said, or all of the misrepresentations of what the Supreme Court said, from Republicans and others.
@nazgul nope.
The technological advancements meant that less work was needed to supply goods for society.
If parents and children started dying in sweatshops 7 days a week that's a different problem that the technological advancements made less necessary.
If it happened anyway don't blame the technology that offered an alternative.
@josh CEOs are held accountable all the time. Lots are fired, lose their pay, get sued, etc.
@MugsysRapSheet I'm reading the SCOTUS decision from a point of view that if we want to know what SCOTUS said we should consult SCOTUS.
The rest doesn't actually matter, because that's how the US legal system works.
Again, where exactly do you find an error in their actual ruling, not in some strawman set up for dramatic sake?
@Hyolobrika well more importantly, it wasn't even logic as much as fact.
It's quite frustrating that someone would get so upset over a matter that they've been factually mislead about. The person had been lied to about what was happening in Texas, and that's really a shame.
But that's really the state of affairs in the US these days, and the state of journalism in general.
People have their own sets of facts, and pointing out that they've been factually mislead is regarded as trolling.
It's how echo chambers protect themselves.
@Thebratdragon @fkamiah17
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:
