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
@Dhmspector SCOTUS is ruling on the specific question, "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."
Unless you'd allege that assassinating a political rival is an official act legally available to a president, that doesn't fall within the scope of the question the Court is considering.
And again, this was made plain during oral arguments.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-939.html
@Delphi but you're not considering the costs if lower productivity contributed to worse standards of living throughout society.
There's more to work than just money. Workers actually make stuff and provide services to others.
@Dhmspector seeing as that wasn't the question before the court, it's highly unlikely.
Even Trump's side at oral argument stressed that it's not what they were asking for.
@CarolineMalaCorbin Well then I would take the next step and say it comes down to how you understand good reason 🙂 different people will disagree about that, after all, depending on their values.
And that's why this gets tricky.
Discrimination in furtherance of the establishment clause is good or bad depending on values.
@ingalls Well I think it mainly just emphasizes that social media platforms can make those decisions for themselves, regardless of what the administration might want to encourage.
@Hyolobrika Well it would be about servers you trust. It's up to the server as to which people see the content.
But from quickly re-skimming the protocol spec, I'm not even sure how true that is. It looks like the protocol still allows servers to send content to other servers regardless of what a user requests.
@Nonilex well the question isn't whether Trump is immune from all acts during his presidency. Both sides in the argument agree that he's not.
The question is about criminal prosecution over official legal acts.
It's an important distinction that's too often missed.
@Hyolobrika yes, the server or instance.
It's all up to them to decide what to do with the content they receive from each other.
@jeaton the article doesn't really sell its conclusion there.
To point out that the amendment doesn't provide for a type of taxation that isn't widespread now is not blowing up the entire tax code. Quite the opposite.
Rawstory.com is just peddling sensationalism and conspiracy at that point.
@Free_Press this has nothing to do with Trump.
@freeschool well, no post sends to all instances. Instances talk among themselves about what posts they want to transmit and receive. It's kind of a subscription setup.
So a scraper instance can request from your instance to have the content delivered to it.
Followers-only doesn't really do anything different with regard to scraping.
But
@CarolineMalaCorbin it absolutely is discrimination, whether for the best or not.
If you're sorting out religious from nonreligious institutions, that's discriminating between them.
Even if one would say the Establishment Clause requires that discrimination, it's discrimination nonetheless.
You're missing that the Supreme Court was applying law that we're free to change.
If we don't like the 2nd Amendment we're free to amend it and change it should the country want to.
@KentSearight@pnw.zone Yeah, senators definitely do want to have control over that other branch of government.
And that's exactly why we don't let them.
It's no surprise that a senator is going to talk about wanting to violate the independent judiciary. He scores political points with it even if he understands why it's such a bad idea.
And the rest of us shit tell him no, and should probably stop reelecting such idiots.
Of course, just to have it said here, the other side of the coin is that discrimination against religious institutions is also problematic.
@jstatepost Well based on what do you have that belief?
@dangrsmind Well I'm happy to clarify that I wasn't talking about everybody. Yeah, some people really do believe it
However, Trump himself is probably the biggest troll we have in society today. That he would post it is something I would point to as an example of these people trolling.
Again, to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that Trump is a troll. I don't think he believes anything that he says, I think his entire career has been built on trolling society.
@Nonilex I always emphasize in these moments, we elected the people that confirmed those judges.
We should stop electing idiots. More strikingly, we should stop reelecting idiots.
We could elect better people. We choose not to. So here we are.
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:
