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
@erin No, the ruling didn't cause clinics to halt their operations, as it didn't impose any standards on them.
It's just not part of the ruling.
If clinics halted operations due to unwarranted fears sown by misreporting about what was in the actual rulings, well, that is in line with my perspective that misreporting is generally awful for society and needs to be called out.
@JeanPDeliet Aid to Ukraine isn't some new idea.
The House had been in session, naming its post offices, criticizing China, and all of that for plenty of time when they could have passed aid had there been interest among the representatives we elected.
It's for good reason that the Speaker still has to respect the wishes of the chamber, as we saw when the last one was outed.
@SaanichGuy honestly, the way the House rules are set up, they try not to allow there to be such conflict of interest issues in the first place.
Critically, in this context, the Speaker doesn't have the power to block legislation that the rest of the chamber wants to pass. If the Speaker tried that, the rest would just go around him or would vote him out and pick a new one.
The legislation isn't proceeding because there is a substantial proportion of the representatives that we elected who aren't convinced it would be well-spent, for better or worse.
There's little Johnson can do about that.
@JeanPDeliet Johnson isn't blocking US aid to Ukraine. That's not how the House of Representatives works.
Instead, we have elected representatives who aren't convinced that the aid would be put to good use, regardless of Johnson. Under House rules they'd just bypass the Speaker if he was standing in their way.
Call your representative and tell him to act. Don't let them scapegoat and point fingers at Johnson.
@TechBean false.
CU had nothing to do with foreign adversaries and explicitly preserved the ability of the FEC to conduct policing of election policies.
@blamellors but it sounds like you DIDN'T hear what they were ruling.
What you said they were ruling doesn't match the actual ruling, which I linked to.
The actual ruling had a different defendant, in different circumstances, facing a different legal process, relying on different legal concepts than the story that's going around.
Once again, we need to call out this propaganda, not promote it when we can so easily debunk it ourselves.
It's funny, and it was said in jest, but for anyone looking to take the question seriously:
Alito posed IF YouTube was a newspaper, how much would it weigh in the context of showing that YouTube is not a newspaper, so principles that apply to newspapers don't apply cleanly to YouTube.
It makes perfect sense in context.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-555_omq2.pdf
Yes, reading comprehension is a thing, so here's a link to the ruling so you can read it yourself. Please do!
The ruling goes out of its way to get ahead of so many of this misrepresentations about what it was about.
For example, NO it wasn't about a woman being charged for destruction of embryos as it was emphatically not a criminal matter, and it was a suit against the facility for an incident that clearly showed negligence.
Read the ruling. It debunks the stories so many are trying to spread.
@erin how do you figure the Alabama ruling leads to that conclusion?
@blamellors that's not at all what the Alabama ruling said, though.
There was nothing about murder on the table for the court to decide, and in fact the court drew an explicit and stark line against this ruling being able to be applied in such a case.
It was also not about discarding IVF embryos, as the ruling itself recognized discarding as routine and fine.
That's just not what the ruling was about, despite the hysterical folks out there yelling.
Ah: No, the #Alabama ruling didn't declare embryos to be children, as any reading of the actual ruling would easily show.
In fact, the ruling went out of its way to stress that it wasn't making any deep or broad declaration.
Once again, there's social turmoil over what's either misunderstanding or misinformation. Sadly, I suspect there are plenty of bad actors who know they're spreading lies, but find the drama to be in their own interests.
@AeonCypher Indeed!
I didn't feel like going through the issue.
I just felt like venting, as I've always found it sad that Oliver went in this direction with his career.
I'd say I'm glad that other people appreciate his work these days, but really, the real world implications of his misinformed pronouncements make even that cold comfort.
@IAmDannyBoling
@notaleman I'd say if it really is a stark choice between imposing a risk on yourself or the other, then I'd choose the other.
Socially, it's a fair way of saying, Don't pull guns on people lightly, as if nothing else there's a good chance you yourself will end up put at risk.
It seems like a good concept to promote.
Destroy Fediverse? This is exactly the sort of strong instance moderation that so many people promote as a benefit of the system!
And sometimes that strong moderation will be against you and sometimes it will be for you, but that is just the way that approach works.
So apparently it's a feature.
Anyway, this is a great illustration of why it's problematic to look to instances of any size to shape feeds instead of focusing on empowering users to do it themselves, to shape their own experiences around here.
You say destroy #Fediverse but really it's pretty much what so many people say they want out of the system, even if they're not ready for the implications of that.
Israel: we take steps to minimize civilian casualties
ICJ: you must take steps to minimize civilian casualties
Israel: Well we can check that off.
Really this just highlights how pointless the ICJ campaign was.
@IAmDannyBoling Oliver really doesn't understand the Supreme Court here, or the legal structure of the US.
Honestly, he generally goes off about things he doesn't understand, and it's another case of a really funny comedian being wasted on political commentary in areas where they completely lack understanding of their topics.
@freemo right so that's why I wonder what @notaleman is actually asking.
I will leave it up to them to clarify the question.
@Nonilex it's not that the #SupremeCourt is hostile toward gun safety.
It's that the law of the land doesn't grant those powers, which we could certainly change if we wanted to.
#SCOTUS is applying the law, even if individual justices might wish the law was different and these restrictions imposed.
Either way, we should change the law so that future administrations who ARE hostile don't claim the right to express that hostility.
@cdarwin this description is a bit misleading, though, underemphasizing that the skepticism of these regulations comes from the EPA not having been granted such sweeping powers through the democratic process.
If we want the EPA to have these powers, the Court emphasizes, we need to elect representatives who will grant those powers in law.
The good neighbor rule is important? Great! Then let's get it written into law so that no future administration can change their mind about it.
@freemo then I'd ask him to rephrase the question because it seems odd to ask about society being held at gunpoint.
I'm thinking about literal guns, but perhaps he means something figurative if he's talking about society.
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:
