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
@johnonolan sure, although I think it needs to be appreciated that there are a lot of people who flat out reject long-form content here, so they would oppose any such move.
Personally, obviously that's not my position🙂
But to be clear, my feedback was to say that I wasn't really sure what was being said, personally I would love more long-form content on the platform and I wish there would be more, but I couldn't tell if the composition was actually promoting that or not.
@ubiquiti_fanatic what? Who said anything about supporting them?
If you want to oppose them, as they say, know thy enemy. This is a big part of knowing them so that you can oppose them.
@AmenZwa what far-right fascists are you referring to here?
@Twitter_expat@mastodon.world It's funny you say that when the court rules against felons so often.
@Nonilex It's critical to note that the court proceeding was not an actual trial with full due process being recognized, which was the crux of this case.
"This case is not about whether States can disarm people who threaten others. States have a ready mechanism for disarming anyone who uses a firearm to threaten physical violence: criminal prosecution." -- Thomas
Folks saying #Thomas voted to arm abusers miss that he emphasizes the exact opposite.
Instead, he voted to maintain the rights of the innocent, which is a pretty different story.
@popcornreel fascists? For NOT extending the power of government?
@CogitoErgoWtf well, what specifically in his dissent do you think points to such corruption?
@SonofaGeorge Thomas didn't vote to allow wife beaters to own guns. That wasn't the question before the Court.
The question was whether the other two branches could legally impose such restrictions.
@queenofnewyork No, that's not what happened. SCOTUS didn't do anything here.
Congress wrote the law to prevent abusers from owning guns, not the Supreme Court. Same with bump stocks: Congress could write a law to to ban them, but they haven't.
If we want the law changed we have to stop reelecting the same congresspeople who fail to change it.
The Supreme Court can't do Congress's job, though.
@RememberUsAlways only if you take a step farther back and also include how RBG's strategic retirement lost SCOTUS for the Democrats...
@freeschool again, my point is that posting these things is worse than unhelpful, if anything they actually contribute to the scraping.
This IS a platform where you broadcast content to anyone who wants it, including companies scraping. That's just the reality, and if you don't want to be doing that, then you don't want to be on this platform.
It's like using a bullhorn and then complaining that people can hear you. Don't use the bullhorn if you don't want to be heard.
To broadcast these notices not only doesn't stop the broadcast, but it sends more content into the scrapers, which is apparently the opposite of what so many want to do.
@BohemianPeasant Oh, I'd go the other way with that.
If you're going to go next level with the story (and if you're going into a conspiracy theory at all, why not make it interesting?) an ANTI-Trump justice or two might be holding it up to support this story that the Court is holding it up for Trump's benefit.
As outlandish as that is, it makes more sense than saying the Court is holding it up out of support for Trump since the Court has much better ways of doing that.
@ubiquiti_fanatic I didn't say otherwise.
If scumbags are fighting among themselves, well if you know that you might be able to use it against them.
@Savvyhomestead
@ChrisHolladay I think it's a case where anyone who's surprised by this was following information sources that mislead them as to how the Court has been ruling.
This outcome was completely consistent with what the Court has been writing in its opinions, contrary to what so many outlets have been saying.
@jackcole that gets a bit complicated in the US system since federal supremacy over states tends to prevent states from taking actions that would interfere with federal functions.
The arrest and trial of a Supreme Court justice might run into that. It would be a thorny issue.
So the best approach would be to impeach first and avoid the whole issue at all.
All of these claims that the Supreme Court is delaying rulings on #Trump matters for political reasons don't even make sense strategically.
Firstly, they're based on misunderstandings about how the US government actually functions, but setting that aside:
If #SCOTUS really wanted to delay trials as claimed they could simply issue rulings that would result in drawn out procedures. There's NO reason they'd hold the ball and take all of this heat when they could pass it along to lower courts.
It's unfortunate that so many people in the US, and on this social media platform, keep promoting those conspiracy theories.
If nothing else, they shield from accountability those who are actually responsible for the things we're critical of.
@TheLastofHisName what? No. The corporations are happy to just have the protesters arrested and off their plates.
These people need to be going out into their communities and having sane, rational engagements with their fellow voters to change minds that will be reflected in their representative governments.
Otherwise, yes, the corps will laugh at them. Sit-ins and direct action are part of the corporations' playbooks. They know how to win that game.
So long as folks are doing that nonsense it keeps them from working to change voters' minds, which is what the corporations actually fear.
And that's the whole point.
@Nonilex I wouldn't say it's so much anti-regulation as much as pro-process.
After all, a regulation on sound legal footing--including Congressional authorization--is going to be more effective regulation in the end.
The arguments over things like Chevron deference aren't saying we shouldn't have regulation. They're saying we should do regulation correctly.
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:
