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
@jwcph your mistake is talking as if this is about Trump himself. It never was. He's just the symbol of his constituents. He's just a piece of trash riding the waves in a puddle, dumb and without any particular direction of his own.
Well, I guess in human terms, he's senile.
But yeah it's about the coalition that elected him. It might be that world events have finally started to break the coalition. We will see.
@jwcph Well, what action would you like spurred?
Exactly, but the problem is Trump is too old and senile to understand that, and so much of his support base is just too idiotic and out of touch to understand that, even if they should know better.
This is just what we are working with.
Unfortunately, we elected the wrong people to Congress, and we reelected them even after they failed us. The people we elect to Congress are supposed to be the ones guarding against this malfunctioning executive branch, but we decided to elect these worthless congresspeople.
That bears so much emphasis because they get forgotten in these discussions so often as they try to shift blame to the other branches.
It's worse: forget those who decided not to vote, these people in Congress were actively voted in.
And so many of my anti-Trump friends voted for these congresspeople who aren't really interested in actually opposing this. And reelected them too.
We voted for this when we elected these awful congresspeople.
It seems like you're leaning really hard into the idea that the legislation has such power over the third branch.
A statute authorizing SCOTUS to have jurisdiction? They can't act without permission of the legislature? No, that doesn't make sense for an independent judiciary impaneled by the Constitution itself.
Yeah, I believe in Dobbs Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he mentioned revisiting rulings based on substantial due process, and so many people--some honest, some sensationalizing--really misrepresented that sentence.
This sort of thing lays bare just how misleading those many, many stories were.
We don't have to wait. We can just stop reelecting them.
WE voted in these representatives and we voted for them again even after they failed us.
It's not about SCOTUS norms and rules. It's primarily about the folks we elect to congress since in the end they're the once with ultimate power over impeachment.
So many of the problems people see in the executive and judicial branches actually come down to us having elected ineffective or corrupt people to Congress.
We elected these people, and we keep reelecting the same ones.
First, it wasn't a supreme court ruling. They refused to get involved to make a ruling.
But to the point, copyright is for society, not for humans.
Copyright is a convenience of law created by legislators because it's seen as a social good to sort out ownership and grant privileges that encourage compositions to be released to the world.
That's why it's limited. If it was for humans it would be tied to humans, but it's not. It's simply a system based on whatever lawmakers see best.
Currently, lawmakers are requiring a human to be involved, but there's no reason they couldn't change that should it be seen as better for society.
One of the biggest conservative megaphones, shaping US policy, rejects things like polling of public opinion and ignores losses in elections because the frat boys they see at football games cheer for #Trump.
With their biases confirmed, anyone they hear not supporting the guy's actions are clearly dishonestly playing politics.
So why should they change course?
#ClayAndBuck: Social media is a mirage! It doesn't represent the whole population! Don't believe it! Now, a group of people tailgating outside a f...
With geniuses like this setting US policy is there any surprise it's such a mess?
#BrianKilmeade: If you queue up Trump's remarks on #Iran you'll see the plan and goal are completely clear. Anyone who doesn't know that isn't pay...
It seems like folks looking at their traffic sources must have an interest in knowing if requests are originating from Fediverse
(or else they wouldn't look, or wouldn't care either way)
And given that interest, they'd want their tools on their end to reflect that aggregation.
I wonder how hard it would be to work with these analysis tools to integrate that aggregation of referrers, for the common good of both their users and ours.
Well, in this administration one also has to put quotes around "committed" given that so many don't follow thought once the Eye of #Trump has wandered elsewhere.
The argument is that it's against the federal Constitution to draw district lines based on race, period.
Doesn't matter WHY one is undertaking such racial gerrymandeing, it's unconstitutional no matter how righteous the motivation might be.
Everything else is pretty consistent considering that stance.
So you've gotten a few things backwards here. The Court is ordering a halt to, not preserving, racial discrimination, and it's ordering it to stop now so that there isn't interference closer to the election.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
A lot of quotations in the article get the SCOTUS ruling wrong, sometimes completely backwards.
The emergency order wasn't anti-trans (that issue wasn't on the table at all) but rather pro-freedom of speech. They were 1st Amendment concerns at issue in the argument.
And so, the article says schools can mandate the outing of trans students, but by the same argument schools would be prevented from exactly that.
Maybe advocates do fear SCOTUS is going after the trans community. If they do, then they don't understand the law. Or maybe they're just stunting for political points.
Well sure, because both cases seemed very likely to win on appeal and otherwise met longstanding requirements for emergency appeal.
This is just how the US legal system works, with the SCOTUS being a check on lower courts that get it wrong.
To be clear, this is in context of the Court finding that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
The Court here found that the state court's efforts to tailor districts around race were likely in violation of that.
Yes, the topic of racial gerrymandering in the US is a mess. At the least we need to be clear about what judicial orders actually say.
It's because the US has a long history of presumption that any say matters, bristling at the idea that authorities get to determine what people can and can't say.
The argument before the Court here is about governmental restriction on speech. A lot of folks miss that.
More to the point, the Court focused on the speech restrictions those laws are based on.
This case is emphatically not about schools outing children. This case is about government restricting and compelling speech, which is always problematic.
The problem is NOT that the state law bans automatic notification. The problem is the opposite, that the law bans any notification.
The problem with the law is not about compulsion but about restriction.
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:
