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
@JaniceOCG to be clear, the US AG works for the president and is tasked with carrying out administration policy.
The buck stops with Biden.
Democrats would do well to dump Biden and choose another nominee to vote for, because otherwise Biden is shirking responsibility for your list.
@PattyHanson right but that's key: Roberts agrees with what's going on WITHIN THE COURT.
And he's staying out of all of this distraction outside of the Court, as he should, given his position.
If Congress wants to impeach and remove a justice for misbehavior, let them. That's their job, not Roberts's.
@dcjohnson in theory that may be true, but in reality such taxation is not politically possible.
So many of these wonderful economic theories simply fail under harsh realities.
So, GIVEN THAT we will not see such taxation, what's the next best option? Probably exactly the things you're questioning here: taxes are revenue.
@AndreasThinks I suspect this is a reflection of the specialized nature of those topics--they're a bit unapproachable to amateurs--which means the population of potential people to participate in those conversations is a bit small.
And it just happens to not have much overlap with the Fediverse userbase, as workers in the field also just might not have that much free time to dip their toes here and sort through all of the other topics that do get more airtime here.
Maybe ironically, better AI would help make Fediverse feeds more useful to people like them, as the chronological sort is unwieldy.
@JamesGleick we really need to push back on this idea that Supreme Court justices have such power.
They don't.
The system was specifically designed to ensure that they would not receive such authority, declining to give executive privileges to the unelected justices.
The perspective that you're quoting falls apart against that reality, as Alito has not found himself in such a powerful position.
Instead, he writes opinions.
@nicholas It's almost like I'm trying to get to the core of your own position irrespective of anyone else.
Your perspective should be able to stand on its own, one would think.
@RememberUsAlways Nice conspiracy theory you've got there.
@meowski did you include any quotes from people that don't support your conclusions? Certainly they exist.
Therefore they are cherry picked and confirming your biases.
@vivekgramaswamy that's not how it works though.
That's not how any of this works
@meowski I would like to get to what's actually going on in the world.
I don't give a fuck if you take a jab or not. What you put into your body is none of my business.
@Greengordon I don't know how to be more clear: it takes money from people as it sells to them.
@havvyhh2 nah. Democracy works fine with ignorant population. The people vote for stupid things and they get stupid things. That's democracy.
The point is that just because democracy arrives at a harmful outcome doesn't mean democracy is broken. The people are broken, education is broken, journalism is broken. But democracy might be working fine, garbage in garbage out, reflecting the ideas of the ignorant public.
The point is to put the finger on the actual problem to solve, not getting distracted by blaming the part that's actually working right.
@havvyhh2 I mean, if millions of Americans misunderstood their government then that really says something about the state of education and journalism, which aren't within the Court's jurisdiction.
I'm sorry people misunderstood the world. We should address that. But it's not the role of the Supreme Court to bow to ignorance like that.
@Greengordon funnel money to rich people? The arrangement described TAKES money from those who bought the info, perhaps to fund government services.
@MichaelTBacon have you listened to the oral arguments? Because the three people you list as competent liberals have a pattern of misquoting cases, missing key arguments before them, and generally being unprepared to act as Supreme Court justices.
Their incompetence is on display at just about every argument.
@Wolven
@Wolven or the neighbor is lying.
Sounds like you're just choosing to believe the side that matches your biases.
@Captain_Jack_Sparrow and those exact words debunk the claim about what he said.
When you yourself point out that he said something different from what you claim he said, you sink your own case.
@meowski cherrypicking quotes that happen to match your beliefs doesn't get us anywhere.
@meowski I can answer that: because statistics.
It's like saying, how could anyone playing the lottery have won when playing the lottery means you increased your chances of having a lighter wallet?
That's just how averaging works.
You're asking how there could be outliers, and well, that's how the calculation works.
@snrub just because one doesn't like Trump doesn't mean one shouldn't point out that Biden is also corrupt.
Republicans couldn't bring themselves to nominate someone other than the sleezebag. Democrats still have time to put forward someone better than Biden.
If they want.
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:
