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
@ginaintheburg Our system isn't supposed to be one where only the elite can understand it.
Court records are posted publicly so we can all read them, because we can all see what's happening.
So there's the docket. We can see what's going on in the Court. We don't need attorneys to tell us what's happening.
@witchescauldron If you want to say something then say it.
We're not going to go scrounging around some website to figure out what you're trying to say.
@jdpribula I mean, it would be tyrannical for the Supreme Court to put Trump and his political allies away.
@joeinwynnewood it's how the Court functions, though.
If you go to the Court for an opinion, then you have to wait for the Court to go through its process to craft the opinion.
The Supreme Court is not meant to be fast. It's meant to be correct, no matter if it takes time to get to the right decision.
This is, BTW, one great reason not to try to use the courts when one is in a rush.
@Kozmo except, that sort of thing violates the notion that we have an independent judiciary.
You can't both have an independent court and a Congress with such power over it. The two are contradictory.
We already have a solution here: impeachment. It is the one and only way to address such a situation, should it be warranted.
Of course, in this case Jeffries just comes across sounding like a partisan, an extremist stirring the pot for political points.
@QasimRashid the problem is, your article doesn't really talk about justice so much as your own personal political opinions.
It's really, What if the Supreme Court is the Greatest Obstacle to Someone Like Me Imposing My Opinions On The Country.
And, well... that's probably for the best.
@KawaTora@kolektiva.social yeah, but yay democracy: lots of people DO want that kind of thing in charge of running government.
The people get the government they want, even if it's a really bad one.
@Doreen32128 that kind of thing is common enough in the tech world.
Investors throw money at projects hoping to get in on the ground floor of one that takes off, even if most will fail.
My guess is that Truth Social won't be one of the winners, so it won't continue to operate. But if it happens to take off, I'll have missed out.
@kgw the Supreme Court's honor and function comes down the contents of their rulings, not their lawn ornaments.
It's really foolish to ignore what they actually do--which I get it, it takes work to read!--and instead read superficially into individual spouse's choices of decor.
But it does make for sensational stories without having to do much actual work.
Reading the petition to the Supreme Court, there weren't strong questions of federal law here, so there's no surprise that the Court didn't bite.
There was simply little in their jurisdiction to review.
@LouisIngenthron this question of regulation of internet activity is an administrative question!
And if a person doesn't know how the administration works, then they're in no position to judge or modify the administration.
That's the point: asking what it's a section of is a great way of putting a point on whether the person has the most basic familiarity with the thing they wish to attack and change.
So many don't.
@witchescauldron the blog post doesn't really say anything of substance, though, just says something is a mess and something else is the solution, but not going into whats or hows.
I don't know what you expected to communicate there.
@albnelson I don't.
And so I'm not confused.
I'm not falling into the mistake of projecting values onto someone, making those assumptions that lead to such misunderstandings and confusion.
@michael_martinez I mean, they can both have exacerbated it.
Just because Trump made it worse doesn't mean we can't hold Biden accountable for making it even worse than Trump did.
His administration's pivots over the years seem to admit his role there.
@Free_Press taking the fifth is emphatically not admitting guilt in the US system.
@witchescauldron well now I think you've left the world of problem solving and gone into abstract flights of fancy :)
No, I'm talking about real solutions to real problems, and choosing the proper, practical solutions to different problems of different domains.
I really don't have interested in these poetic notions like "most contemporary code is capitalism".
It's a silly thing to say, when there are real problems to be solved.
@albnelson well, let me try again to lead you to where this is going :)
Over and over here you're returning to the same thing, projecting your own perspective on others and viewing others through your own lens even as they may see the world very differently.
Such projection leads to misunderstandings and confusion. It leads to faulty conclusions.
You can see it even here: once again you are "assuming that Alito and I were raised" in a certain way, and you end up "confused."
And I say YES, EXACTLY! Those assumptions are leaving you confused! So question your assumptions!
@LouisIngenthron I'd say that kind of proves my point. S230 exists outside of the CDA, and if I ask my question, "S230 of what?" then CDA is not the correct answer, and shows a misunderstanding of the state of play.
I also don't think asking a trick question would help anything.
@jchyip you see how you had to get more complicated to draw up the supposedly simpler explanation?
No, it's not a simpler explanation, as you are illustrating by having bring in all of that extra narrative to make your claim!
And that's not even getting into whether your story is actually true. It's just showing how it's more complicated to arrive at your conclusion.
@albnelson that you can't imagine such diversity is my entire point.
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:
