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
@tehuti88 Data sampling is a real thing, you know. It's part of the scientific method. You shouldn't be so quick to just dismiss it.
Now if you have solid data that refutes the claim, bring it forward!
But at this point your post is pretty much anti-scientific, and I think it's important to realize that. Careful what you're attacking.
@Climatehistories his DOGE-funded emergency response team will be in charge?
That's not how the federal government works. You're repeating nonsense here.
@HamonWry He's fighting against Democrats who are making a strategic blunder, wanting to shoot themselves in the foot so that they wouldn't be as able to fight back against Trump going forward.
That's where his fight is. He's trying to save the Democrats from themselves, having to fight both the suicidal call to shut down government and the administration at the same time.
@Thelonious08 do you see how silly it sounds to talk about voting with the fascist?
If a person really is such a fascist then votes wouldn't matter either way.
Statements like that just sound crazy.
@salixsericea If Trump isn't less popular and doesn't have the backing of as many in our democratic system the next time this discussion comes up, then nothing really matters anyway.
And that's why folks need to fight to convince their fellow countrymen over to their side.
The fight is in the population, not in DC. If people want Trump to govern, well, then the fight is lost.
@TCatInReality I don't think voting against continuing the operations of the US government is the salvation from self-destruction that you think it is...
So many people upset about #Schumer in the #Senate are falling into the same trap that people fell into with regard to Mitch McConnell:
Minority and majority leaders in the Senate don't have that much more authority than any other senators. But, the other politicians use them as scapegoats to escape their own accountability.
The minority leader here didn't single-handedly give the Republicans a win. He doesn't have that authority or that power. Instead, blame the rest of the Democratic senators who voted for the Republican position.
Don't let them get away with it by just focusing on the minority leader.
@PaulWermer You're getting the Supreme Court ruling backwards.
It absolutely did not say that the president can do whatever he wants as an official act. What it said was that a president cannot prosecute a former president for something that was legal on the grounds of it being a lawful, official action.
@xgranade What in the world?
No, the Senate does not have the authority to sign away their powers. Their powers are codified above them, and it would take constitutional amendment for them to give up their powers.
All the rest is people just running around with exaggerated craziness that doesn't understand basic civics.
@remixtures since Musk doesn't have that legal authority, in part specifically to avoid conflicts of interest, I don't think you're seeing what you think you're seeing.
(Or more to the point, a lot of people are running around spreading misinformation about what's going on, and unfortunately it's spreading quite easily on social media, so a lot of people are seeing things that just aren't really true)
@gottalaff.bsky.social meh, not really.
Keep in mind that with the way the US system is structured, lower courts are bound to rule in certain ways even if they themselves know the ruling is incorrect just based on the body of law of being handed to them. Often only the SCOTUS can fix faulty precedents.
It's not that they own the Supreme Court. It's that only the Supreme Court can fix the law in the US system, so there's nothing particularly strange about losing in lower courts until finally getting to the ones that can actually resolve the cases.
@gottalaff.bsky.social meh, not really.
Keep in mind that with the way the US system is structured, lower courts are bound to rule in certain ways even if they themselves know the ruling is incorrect just based on the body of law of being handed to them. Often only the SCOTUS can fix faulty precedents.
It's not that they own the Supreme Court. It's that only the Supreme Court can fix the law.
@light it might just be a qoto.org customization, but I think the interface over here allows that kind of behavior.
I keep people I'm following or subscribed to (I've never been clear on whether there's a difference) on different lists based on what kind of stuff they tend to post.
@remixtures Musk isn't the leader of DOGE, no matter how much Trump might try to pass off that line. He doesn't have the legal authority of leading the agency.
But more to the point, so what?
Multiple administrations and administrators figured out that those high profile, highly scrutinized contracts were positive for the US.
@levelbot we're gonna need a bigger meter
@MusiqueNow that misunderstands the ruling.
It's not that SCOTUS weakened regulations, but that Congress didn't decide those regulations should exist.
SCOTUS merely bowed to the democratic process, respecting the conclusions of the representatives we elect, as it must under the US system.
We should stop electing and reelecting shitty lawmakers, though.
Keep in mind that reporting often gets details wrong when it comes to technical details, and this case is no exception. A lot of these reports are misleading in substantial ways.
At its current stance, the request before the #SCOTUS is NOT about birthright citizenship. The Court is not being asked to rule on that, and in fact it cannot rule on that if it wanted to at this juncture.
That comes later in the process.
THIS is about how lower courts implement judicial process, whether they can issue injunctions with effect outside of their jurisdictions.
This is about judicial procedure, not about #birthrightcitizenship.
Ultimately, #SCOTUS could absolutely find that the #Trump order must be blocked, but not in this way.
@Fassbender yes, definitely, and it's a drum I bang as much as I can because it's so important.
So many users on this platform don't realize how public everything is, and that's a big problem as they post content expecting it to be secure when it's not.
I always try to raise awareness of that so people can make informed choices, and also, I really wish UIs could make that more clear to users.
I don't expect that it will be possible to make this very privacy-protecting, but at least users need to know what they're getting into.
@eluxzen I'd say fediverse (well, ActivityPub) is open and non-private by its core design.
If a user wants privacy, this is the wrong tool for the job, and bolting on privacy protection would basically make it a different system.
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:
