volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@MaxPow3r11 so far it sounds like conservatives are pointing out that this assassination attempt was already illegal, so Biden just needs to enforce the law.

That there already is gun control.

@CStamp no.

If you think that there is a man to blame for J6 then you have been misled about what happened that day, you have bought into a conspiracy theory that doesn't make any sense.

You should stop falling for those people.

But either way, the answer is no.

@Kierkegaanks oh my concern is that you are actually supporting Putin's side. I'm specifically replying to be anti-Putin.

I'm troubled that you are playing his game.

So shall I call you putinbot? Because I really wish folks didn't support the guy like you are in your commentary.

We can discuss this this if you'd like, or maybe you are just going to be a bot and spread your propaganda and that's that.

@johnzajac why not just change humans?

I think that's the sort of question that has been asked out of hubris throughout history and generally doesn't work out very well when it's tried.

Why not build power plants with perpetual motion machines to turn the gears? Well, turns out it just doesn't work, that's the harsh reality.

We are stuck with humans that like to like things, that will pursue the things that make them happy. That's just reality, for better or worse, and we really have to work with that, we can't fix them to make them different, to make them conform to our ideas of how they should be.

Even if that would make us happy, even if we would like to pursue that because that is the thing that makes us happy, which,... you see what I'm going for here.

@pratik specifically what Republicans threatened civil war?

@Kierkegaanks question begged.

To clarify, the big question is about seeing Russian drinking songs or whatever. So so many people jump right to that conclusion when that's actually the question on the table.

@Nonilex propublica is a really slanted publication that relies on clickbait these days.

It would be much more useful if we focused on the way that doctors are getting the laws wrong and setting up special interest groups to promote their own ideas, that are kind of off the wall in the first place. They need to be called out for that.

Doesn't make as good a story, though, so propublica focuses on the conspiracy theory type stuff, letting them off the hook.

It's not good for society and propublica needs to be called out for the sensationalism that they make their money on.

@Kierkegaanks The problem is, a whole lot of people have really weird ideas about what a trump presidency would mean to the Ukraine, just as they had really backwards ideas about what a Trump presidency would mean to nato.

It ends up being an exercise in question begging.

@johnzajac yeah but the key is to recognize that incentive and make sure that the more effective treatment has the profit margin.

If it's worth more, pay more for it.

Don't complain about human nature when we can work with that to our advantage.

@professorhank@sfba.social it's past time that we kept listening to daily beast. We should call them out constantly for misleading and sensationalized headlines.

This one is no different. It's a sensationalized article to get clicks, and people who know their civics know that the article is pretty nonsensical.

No, Roberts does not have authority to direct the court, contrary to what this breathless article is trying to sell to the public.

The daily beast is not a reliable source. People need to stop listening to it unless it gets better.

@LoreleiArmstrong effective vaccine for what?

@SNerd fortunately democracy says nah, The sensational clickbait doesn't drive us to violate the independence of the judiciary.

Fortunately we have elected enough sane people who, even if they suck at everything else, won't go down that dangerous path.

@Andy_Tattersall I mean, as an academic on X I feel like I do have some basis for talking about the experience of academics on X...

@Andy_Tattersall honestly, it doesn't matter.

Academics posting on x were not really serious, so this sort of drama doesn't really have much impact on academia or the world at large.

In fact, I'd say the non-serious stuff posted on x might have been misinformation anyway, so we all might be better off in the end.

Serious academics have been critical of all that stuff anyway.

@sj_zero Yes, the point of consuming news should be to gain information that's not partisan, but your comment here seems to lean into partisanship, basically keeping for her party.

Yeah I would say the point should be to keep abreast of what actually happens, but your description here is not really accurate, doesn't accurately reflect the rulings that the court handed down.

The thing that you're missing in your analysis is the actual logic of the rulings. You're focusing on who you think different rulings might benefit and overlooking that there is actual objective reasoning behind them.

To put it a different way it sounds like you are saying the court is not partisan and then you go ahead and view the court through the partisan lens. Which is weird.

@mark_melbin

@mark_melbin jeez, these clickbait stories are spiraling out of control. No, that's not how that works.

I was critical of a different News outlet that had its own clickbait headline, but I was assured that people are going to take it seriously and it would be okay. And then you see nonsense like this.

No, that's not how the US government works. The daily beast is lying to you. It is not a reliable source, but it does promote certain interests, effectively spreading propaganda.

For goodness sake realize that you're being lied to from this source, and stop going to it.

You're being manipulated.

@JuanWild@newsie.social it's false, though, because when you look at the history, Roe v Wade had already been overturned as unworkable after decades of trying.

So this is trying to gin up drama where it really doesn't exist.

@DJ_2280 That's not what the leaks expose, even though the New York Times might try to get some clickbait headlines saying so.

No, it's not meddling. All of the justices get to write whatever opinions they want to write. It's just the normal course of coming to a consensus among people who sometimes disagree.

The whole matter is bad journalism that misleads the public and we need to call the press out on doing so.

@theguardian_us_environment it's not, though. The Guardian really doesn't know what it's talking about.

I often listen to such British outlets for both international news and just idle curiosity about what they think is happening in the US through their lens, but it's kind of academic because they really don't understand how things work in this country, they really are not up on American civics.

So, no. That's not what's at stake because they just really don't understand how the US government functions. It's not a parliamentary system and that is key.