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
@si_irini so often we see cases of activists being so out of touch, or so nearsighted, that they don't see that their tactics harm their own causes.
Those falling into that trap are foolish children.
So why do they do that? Because they're foolish children who don't understand the harm they're doing, including to themselves.
@freeschool those notices will do nothing to stop a company from vacuuming up your postings to help build their marketing profiles of you or train AI or whatever.
They will be more content to put in their databases, though.
You're comparing apples and oranges while talking about machine parts.
I'm pointing out that this is a unique case and time doesn't matter in the context of the court, and yet you're continuing to talk about time, which doesn't matter, in comparison against other cases, which are uncomparible.
AND the claim doesn't make sense in the first place. A delay gets the supposed conspiracy nothing at this point, given the timing of lower courts.
@Guinnessy but that's why you don't go to the SCOTUS in the first place if you need speed. Go to the two other branches.
If the house needs to be built in a specific timeframe, don't hire a baker since he's not even the right one to build a house in the first place!
I'm also reminded of people upset that the Court didn't talk about Trump enough when hearing this case. Except... the Supreme Court's role sitting as a court of appeals here has pretty much nothing to do with Trump. Those people who were upset don't understand the Court's role in the US government.
It's just not what the Court is for, and people are seeing malice due to their misunderstandings of this stuff.
@dougiec3 So you look for historical tradition that's in the context of whatever law is on the table.
Since there is no question of law about whether women have a right to vote, one wouldn't go looking to the tradition of whether women have a right to vote.
@bespacific you're comparing apples and oranges, though. This case was particularly nuanced as they sought to answer that rather deep question of federal construction.
It's pretty rare that such a case even gets to the Court, and since judicial independence means they can take their time and get it right, there's nothing strange about it taking them a while to resolve their stance.
Folks trying to make something of timing here don't understand that time doesn't matter to the Court by its nature.
If you wanted something done fast, there were two other branches better situated to respond to situations today.
@dcdeejay that's not what happened here, though.
Both sides in the dispute were engaging in originalist analysis. They simply weighed different factors differently in light of an incomplete picture.
Barrett wanted to go farther and make a broader ruling, while the ruling that carried the day was narrower given the case before them.
@Guinnessy you're just looking for meaning in a metric that has no meaning in their context, though.
It doesn't matter what the meaningless issue of timing was previously compared to this meaningless case of timing, timing just doesn't enter into it.
It's like complaining that this wrench is really slow a driving a nail, because you had a different wrench that was faster at driving a nail, when in reality wrenches aren't the right tool to drive nails in the first place, so it's not relevant.
As for bizarre decisions, I thought the bump stock decision was very straightforward...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
@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.
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:
