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
@RememberUsAlways sounds like you're buying into the common story that gets CU backwards.
In #CitizensUnited Kennedy wrote that because money was so prevalent in politics, the president should not be allowed to muzzle those of us with less money who want to organize to speak back against the rich.
If anything, if there is a correlation here, it's related to the propensity for Americans to believe misinformation about what topics like CU really entail.
We all need to correct those falsehoods... that strain of propaganda.
Things won't improve until we debunk those commonly believed myths.
@RememberUsAlways What in the world are you talking about?
In every SCOTUS decision they lay out exactly how US law is based on the Constitution.
Anyway, considering the state of play, Democrats could take control of the House today if they wanted to. That they don't make those motions says a lot.
And I think it dovetails with your post here. They have folks convinced of this stuff, and they benefit by leaving control to the Republicans so they can spin these tales.
@Nonilex and @EndicottAuthor you're giving them too much credit.
This administration is characterized by shamelessness.
Admit their mistake? They don't care about whether they made a mistake or not, they don't care whether we think they did or not. They're shameless.
Desperate to cover their asses? Again, they don't care.
They simply saw a different option for accomplishing their goal, maybe more easily, so they pivoted.
Their supporters really don't care either way.
@wjmaggos You're halfway right.
You say fewer voters in a primary, but your next idea suggests that more people would be voting in primaries because it would be in their interests to have candidates that they prefer.
No, the better argument doesn't go that direction, it simply says that the two-party system is a natural result of FPTP, and we would be better going on to something ranked choice instead of emulating that with the two-party system.
Same conclusion, but the argument that goes the better, more constructive direction.
@ILoveAmericaNews clearly we can't since we keep reelecting members of Congress despite the budget not being balanced.
We have that option every election. We don't take it.
@arroz What are examples of sexism there?
Mainstream #conservative media take on #Musk vs #Trump seems to be settling on the idea that #Elon has poor impulse control, but good on Trump for being a mature statesman.
Just so you know.
Siiiigh.
@CindyWeinstein fascist?
They are arguing about the best ways to minimize governmental power!
This dispute is fundamentally anti-fascist!
@Hex careful, promote this kind of thing and he can come after you next.
The Court didn't so much side with her as it sided against an action of the lower court. The woman could absolutely still lose her case.
This is how the SCOTUS normally works as an appelate court: it judges lower courts, and here it says the lower court got the process wrong, and it told the lower court to go back and try again.
In other words, this decision leaves it on the table that the woman was simply an asshole.
It mainly comes down to the people we elect to Congress to police this and make sure the US is conducting itself in the ways we want it to go.
If we elect representatives who agree to these military operations and fund programs to make them happen, then contractors will often make them more effective through partnerships with the standing military.
If we don't like it, we need to stop reelecting the representatives who support that direction.
It's so important to hold reps accountable, but too often they get to avoid the hard questions.
@alex_p_roe it wasn't a new power.
Really, people misunderstand the ruling. It wasn't a new power for former presidents but rather a restriction on power for the current president.
What the ruling said was simple: the current president cannot prosecute a former president for legal actions. Importantly, that ruling says Trump can't prosecute Biden either.
The ruling slapped down Biden for exploiting his DoJ against Trump. It also said Trump can't exploit his DoJ again Biden, no matter how much Trump supporters want that.
@GottaLaff note that it is contested whether there was harmful conduct that violated military orders.
The contractor says they did follow orders.
@lillyfinch whether they should be allowed to sue is a much thornier question than pay differences, though.
Also, it's apples and oranges to compare checks written to troops against checks written to companies brought in to provide services. Not only are there differences in benefits that aren't considered there, but the management structures are vastly different.
But mainly, to say they should be allowed to sue here begins to involve all of the state courts in actions on battlefields around the world. It's a really problematic proposal.
When things like this happen, there are better ways to handle it than rushing to the local courts to order feds around.
@alex_p_roe SCOTUS issued its immunity ruling while a Democrat was elected president...
Wow, he really doesn't understand the law as it comes to 2nd Amendment protections. It emphatically has nothing to do with "military-style."
Further, wield the Constitution? No, that's not how the US system works; it's backwards.
To paraphrase the joke, In United States, Constitution wield you!
@HarriettMB meh, same old arguments regardless of who's in the White House.
No reason to reach for a conspiracy theory like that.
@BrideOfLinux Well it's misinformative.
The episode tells a story, but unfortunately a lot of it is just not factually true, compared to the legal and historical records that we have.
It's basically propaganda. Except I think the host actually believes it, unfortunately.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social Well right, that's how the law works, that's how it was written.
The law was written so that these people would be legally protected until they weren't, and the Supreme Court is simply recognizing what the law says, for better or worse.
@upright What are you talking about?
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
