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
@Akshay no, there's an important difference between questioning harm vs intentionally causing it.
Very often Republicans want to help, but they're just ignorant of the world, so they don't know how.
@DeniseG rewrite history? Or update it as new evidence emerges that raises questions about the story folks settled on back then.
There's nothing wrong with updating what we know based on new information.
@walterolson.bsky.social well right, because #Trump's core proposal is that he'll fight, not that he'll win or accomplish any particularly useful outcome.
Always view Trump through that lens.
"Fight, fight, fight" is famously the line he pushes, and these are fights he's picking.
I always bang the drum that #Democrats pretty much promoted #Trump back into office with their campaign strategies that played exactly into the rhetoric he was using.
I was saying it at the time, and I feel sadly vindicated.
Why didn't Ds attack Trump over #Epstein? Well, I always said they should have attacked Trump over his failures and incompetence.
Instead, as you say, they attacked him with cries of fascism that only built him up in the eyes of voters that were into certain policy proposals.
IMO it was because Ds were more focused on preaching to their own choirs than actually defeating Trump.
And so not only did they lose but they HELPED Trump win.
Sadly, they have not changed course now.
@CindyWeinstein US Supreme Court can only rule on cases brought before it, and generally only in the course of an appeal of a lower court's ruling.
Generally, though, it's the people we elect to Congress who would be addressing this sort of thing.
Nah, public approval is very important to them. Trump runs on a message of being the guy for the people, and his whole thing is appealing to popularity.
The twist is that they're happy to live in an alternative universe with their own positive popularity numbers regardless of what the data says.
Remember his most attended inauguration in history? Facts don't really matter.
@gelliottmorris.com
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social It's more that he blabbers about some random thing that he heard on Fox News, that he barely remembers, and then he lets everybody else fill in the blank of interpretation.
You make it sound intentional or premeditated. It's not. When you listen to Fox News and then you compare it with what he says you can see exactly what he's referring to, he just doesn't bother remembering the story enough to lay it out well.
Trump's just not that with it.
@Lazarou I think that's exactly what happened
@theleavingyear No, this is once again NPR getting the story backwards. And they really need to knock it off because it's really hurting faith in journalism.
No, that's not how the Supreme Court has been ruling, and if you read the rulings themselves, NPR is just really out to lunch. NPR reporting is once again easily debunked from the public sources.
It's really a shame that NPR has let us down so badly for a generation now.
@kaspa The key is to stop reelecting the same congresspeople who keep screwing us over and funding these projects.
@PariaSansPortefeuille those aren't the stated intents of the attacks architects, though.
Yes, the attacks were stupid, but this isn't helping.
@mfennvt It's not so much that the court gave Trump something he wanted but that called out a lower court for doing the wrong thing, for acting outside of correct judicial process.
It doesn't matter whether Trump wanted that or not, the judicial system has to live within correct judicial processes, no matter who is arguing cases in front of them.
SCOTUS corrected the lower court. It really doesn't have anything to do with Trump over in the other branch of government.
@bespacific Trump action against government agencies? No that's not how the federal government in the US is set up.
For better or worse, the executive power is vested in the president, so to say he's acting against government agencies doesn't really make any sense.
If Trump is doing a bad job, then hopefully the people that we elected to provide him funding through the legislative branch will cut the funding. Or impeach him. And if they don't, we need to stop reelecting the same jerks who fail us.
THAT is the solution provided for a president doing a bad job, not complaining that he's not paradoxically doing what he doesn't want to do because he wants to do what he doesn't want to do or something like that.
By definition Trump cannot act against agencies since executive branch agencies exist as an extension of himself in the US system of government.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social What? It was correcting lower courts for getting it wrong.
@drrjv What in the world? If you read what the court put out, it's nothing like that.
I'd go farther: she doesn't seem to understand what's going on in the court. She seems way out of her depth, way under qualified for the job that she has.
So yeah, useless, just writing things that show that she doesn't really know how courts work, making a fool of herself.
@skyfaller you don't realize this one is awful too?
@ml it's not the position of the country that it is...
The administration has gone out of its way to agree with you.
@drrimmer it's so noteworthy that Jackson is focused on the superficial instead of the substance here.
That seems to be a running theme of hers.
@steter what are you talking about?
He's pointing out that Trump is acting unconstitutionally, and you reply that the unconstitutional actions are what the Constitution gets us?
And exactly what would you have Al do?
And at the end, apparently his doing something would be capitulation?
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:
