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
@levisan Yeah I'm reminded of the drinks where everybody seems to be very open about saying it's flavored that way to hide the taste of alcohol, at which point, people with that perspective are just trying to get drunk without having to taste it 🙂
I think a lot of people wouldn't even deny it.
@tuban_muzuru One funny part of the situation is that his antics step on the toes of other representatives so that his own voters might be laughing about the joke they're playing on everyone else, but everyone else who is seeing their own representatives interfered with won't be quite so amused by him.
To put it in a really cynical way, maybe half the country is pissed off because this guy is being a troll and standing in the way of their own representatives engaging in their own trolling! That is, if we assume the worst, that all of these elected people are trolls.
@evan I mentioned it's probably technically infeasible, but philosophically, I'd be against that too.
The reply that someone else made is sort of their work, their art. For you to be able to delete their work is something of an affront to the ideas that we make our own content around here.
Yes, their content referred to yours. No, that doesn't make their content yours.
@Savvyhomestead I think you might underappreciate how many Republicans can't stand the guy.
@levisan so really, factoring that out, you don't get the point of alcohol :)
Which is fair!
@Jimijamflimflam this is the focus people should have had all along, pointing out Trump's failures, showing how inept and impotent he is.
When #Trump's critics went on and on (and continue to go on) about how he's going to do all this bad stuff, change everything, bring about the end of civilization, whatever, they're building the guy up. Trump's supporters LIKED that view of him, the fighter that was going to stand and fight.
Instead we should have spent years talking about what a loser he was, that he couldn't even make something like Foxconn work. He's not going to be a fighter for you; he's going to keep being a loser, just as ever.
THAT was the strategy to undermine Trump. Bonus is that it was truthful.
Unfortunately, folks played to his tune instead, and that's how he's managed to get so close to getting back to the Whitehouse.
@gwagner it strikes me that maybe those business leaders shrug off these insane predictions about what Trump would do because, first, they're sufficiently informed to know that they're not actually possible, and secondly, they noticed that all those people were crying wolf last time, just to confirm that these dire predictions are nuts.
Seriously. They shrug off the possibility of an end to the rule of law because that's simply not an option available to a US president.
They know better. I wish more did.
(and as an aside, people forget that Bush v Gore was a case about a lower court interfering in an election, with the Supreme Court ordering the lower court to knock it off. It was a much different, and far simpler, case than this one)
@Guinnessy that's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm not saying the court should do anything.
In the US system, part of judicial independence is recognizing judges' and justices' authority to decide for themselves what they should do.
If you need quick action, there are two other branches of government that are set up to be responsive--and accountable!--like that.
But complaining about the Court not doing something that it shouldn't be doing in the first place is grabbing the wrong tool for the job.
@Janef sure, and that's what I'm trying to highlight: this isn't actually about Trump.
The problems existed before Trump, and they're larger than just that one jerk.
We need to spend a lot more time trying to fix the institutions that lead to things like young people being disengaged. Personally, I blame some trends in journalism for a ton of this problem, and it's up to journalists to change course.
@Guinnessy again, the framing is wrong from the get go since the Court is supposed to act on its own schedule. The timing doesn't actually matter since timing is not part of the Court's mandate.
And heck, if the administration thought this was important it could move ahead regardless of the Court by dropping the contested parts of their case.
The executive branch is to care about timing. Apparently it doesn't mind the delay.
It's just silly for these press outfits to try to make an issue of the Supreme Court not abiding by a standard it's not supposed to abide by in the first place.
Wrong branch of government.
@seanthegeek the thing is, the US system doesn't rely on voluntary respect for checks and balances. They aren't optional.
Trump can't remove checks and balances. Any president will be subject to them, whether he wants them to be there or not.
So many people running around with their hair on fire don't seem to understand just how outlandish these stories are.
The sky isn't actually falling.
@Kozmo that the trigger is released and reengaged automatically is to validate Thomas, though: that it happens automatically confirms that it happens.
@dougiec3 to say the framing came from Trump is to ignore that the framing has been around long before Trump was ever on the scene.
No, the framing didn't come from Trump. Trump got it from others as well.
@Crunk well, Congress wrote the definition, so it was our elected officials in Congress who said a bump stock was not a machine gun.
@gcvsa the thing is, this ruling wasn't a surprise. The issue with the NFA was well-known for a long time, and Congress could have stepped in at any point to clarify the NFA if it so chose.
The people we elected to Congress were apparently uninterested in banning bump stocks.
@freeschool uh huh.
It just means this will now be scraped and that you have it on there will be added to your profile in the company's database.
@Guinnessy well, it's really that the SCOTUS is NOT being political here, as much as people are trying to use them for political means.
Courts, and appeals courts in particular, are SUPPOSED to move at an unhurried pace. This is how it's supposed to work. They'll release an opinion when they want to.
Yeah, Nixon might have finished his 2nd term before the decision on the Watergate tapes. What of it? That's how courts work, and if folks wanted a fast, political outcome, that's what the political branches are for.
Congress is free to impeach in a day if it wants to. That's where one goes if in a rush.
@evan such functionality is kind of incompatible with a distributed/federated social network, though.
Without a central authority overseeing this kind of thing, there's no real central list of replies that one can order to remove.
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:
