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
@kgw The thing is, the Supreme Court is intentionally powerless in the US system. It was by intention that executive powers were kept away from that branch of government, and so the Supreme Court really only has the influence that we ourselves project onto it.
So it's an interesting question, I don't understand how a Supreme Court can be as influential as it is? Well that's because the person asking the question is subscribing to the idea that it is influential.
Otherwise, the Supreme Court can write whatever opinions they want, and they will land like a stone and go nowhere.
Unless people decide to recognize those opinions as influential.
@popcornreel That's not factually what happened, though. Whoever is telling you this is lying to you.
@jmadelman what that quote is missing is that we are free to change the law, we just have to go through the democratic process to do it.
It's not that every gun regulation must involve historians. It's that historians help us understand the history of laws written in history.
We can write new laws and then we won't need historians. They'll be modern laws. But so long as we keep reelecting the same politicians who aren't interested in updating the laws, were left looking to history.
@freeschool but posting followers only does not actually prevent or protect against scraping. The way this platform is designed, it's only a suggestion, that content is still subject to scraping
And people need to realize that when they post here.
@bigheadtales just answering your question.
@EarthOne24@mastodon.social Thomas specifically talked about taking guns away from people who were threatening.
No biggie? Thomas said definite biggie! Thomas called for taking guns away from those people!
@BohemianPeasant That's not what the opinion said though.
@SETSystems@defcon.social @MarcAbrahams
@EarthOne24@mastodon.social Koch foundation funded efforts to promote democracy and get out the vote against Trump.
@MasterMischief but not a change in the rules as claimed.
@marynelson8
@bigheadtales The first two words.
@GottaLaff
For anyone who cares about Elon #Musk , videos like this by Everyday Astronaut are critical to, well, criticize.
Notice how the host prompts Elon. The host puts out these ideas and asks Elon to confirm them.
That's really how the mythology around Musk is built. He's not asking for it, people are projecting it onto him. And so much stuff that people complain about Musk over come down to things that are being projected onto him. And for his sake, he's rich enough to just take it.
And this is a lesson because it can also be applied #Trump.
Rightly or wrongly, these are public figures that are loved and hated based on what is being projected onto them, not their own stuff.
I think it's really important to recognize this phenomenon, and it goes both ways: If you love Musk/Trump you need to realize that what you love might be a projection and not actually part of the person. If you hate them, same thing.
It's academically really interesting. It's practically really sad.
@realTuckFrumper always remember that Sotomayor is pretty dumb, so when she spouts off like this you really can't put too much stake in it.
@MasterMischief application or misapplication, the rule has been there the whole time. No change in rules as claimed. That was false.
As for the rest, these are the people we voted for applying the rules that they have at their disposal.
@newsopinionsandviews That's not what Clarence Thomas said in his dissent. He explicitly said otherwise.
Thomas said to go ahead and bring charges against domestic abusers. Take their guns away. Just do it in a way that respects due process.
@iuculano That's not how this is working at all though. You're just promoting a conspiracy theory that doesn't match reality.
In reality the executive branch is completely free to move forward with Trump trials. They chose to involve legal theories that brought the Supreme Court into the matter, and literally any hour Biden is free to pivot and bring a case that doesn't involve these legal questions.
That's not up to the Supreme Court. That's up to the other branch of government.
These conspiracy theories are based on lack of understanding of what's actually happening here.
@grrlscientist Total immunity is emphatically not what this case is about. Both parties to the case have explicitly explained that.
@mloxton Well it's a matter of judicial Independence. If we want an independent judiciary then we have to let them make their own rules, including making their own timelines.
It's a matter of principle that a court will take its time to issue an opinion when it's ready. And not before. So this is the matter of principle, this is a principled Court not being rushed by political concerns.
@Free_Press The answer is simple: you can encourage people to be better people while still acknowledging that individuals aren't perfect. That they have flaws.
This is pretty standard.
@marynelson8 according to the article referenced there was no change in rules.
This was simply the application of the long-standing rule in the House.
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:
