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
@MFennVT as is so common, Sotomayor doesn't seem to have read the opinion that she's criticizing so sensationally, as the opinion says the exact opposite of what she lays out.
The opinion leaves officials wide open for prosecution should they use gratuitous force. It only applies qualified immunity to non-gratuitous force.
Heck, that's the "qualified" in "qualified immunity"!
Sotomayor should know better.
But it's also not how it works to say the Supreme Court gets to make that call. They don't have such authority, constitutionally, regardless.
You're right that Congress can't really make laws to correct such a ruling, that's not how that works, but that's because the entire question is above them all.
@flancia.org such an openminded mindset is sadly lacking offline as well as in online communities.
Really throwing babies out with bathwater.
#ClayAndBuck:Twice now #Trump has "bamboozled" #Iran by attacking them while they were at the negotiation table.THAT's how we know Iran is negotia...
Well, to be fair it's not really about common sense. There are plenty of statutes out there that go against common sense.
Fortunately, at least in this case, the law passed by Congress didn't go so far as to make ISPs liable.
volkris
boosted
#BrianKilmeade: The US should just go take the Strait of Hormuz. We'll just own it. It'll be easy. And we should start escorting ships through--it won't be a problem. Just like we did decades ago. #USPolitics
@everton137 I think there's just not much to discuss.
Voters in the US aren't interested in electing a reasonable, responsible government, so what's there to say?
It's like a bad sitcom. There's just not much to say about it.
Right, wrong branch of government. It's really up to Congress and the people that we elect to Congress.
We have to stop reelecting the same ineffective people.
This is especially timely as Republican-aligned figures join in the debate over #ICE and DHS funding by explicitly rejecting due process for those accused of being illegal immigrants.
I cringe every time I hear them assert that, and it seems to be a major stickingpoint in Congress at the moment.
Absolutely there are still three functioning branches! The problem isn't in the functioning but in how we use them.
Congress is really the key, as we elect and reelect representatives to represent us, well, turns out we want gridlock, so it's giving us exactly the gridlock we voted for.
It's like a computer that's operating 100% correctly, but we keep putting garbage in and getting garbage out.
Idiots advising #Trump on US policy are at about this level, completely unaware that these terms and determinations have real, significant legal implications.
Kilmeade being so low key about giving up the imminent argument shows he has no idea how important that concept is in the US system of governance.
#BrianKilmeade: With all the controversy over whether the attack on #Iran was justified by it posing an imminent threat to the US, why can't we ju...
Meh, presidents still require statutory permission to act, even to engage in enforcement action against actual criminals.
It's part of the US design that it requires cooperation of all three branches for the federal government to act against its citizens.
From what I hear, many justices on the SCOTUS have consciously taken the position that it would be improper for them to engage like that.
They don't believe it would amount to politicization of the non-political branch to go on a campaign of persuasion outside of the opinions they hand down.
volkris
boosted
#ClayAndBuck: You know things are going well in #Venezuela because there hasn't been any media coverage of it. The media would cover it if things were going badly. (So they say after I was hearing media coverage about how it was going badly) #USPolitics
@misskitty.art What specifically are you talking about?
@darulharb I mean I think most of us just say that the guy is a senile joke who doesn't know how anything in the world works.
That's probably the easiest thing to say.
Out of curiosity, because I haven't read it, what specifically might be unconstitutional about it?
Watching the screw-ups in the Comey prosecution right now I’m just thinking #TACO , #Trump Always Chickens Out, should be joined by #TOFU , Trump O...
Watching the screw-ups in the Comey prosecution right now I’m just thinking #TACO , #Trump Always Chickens Out, should be joined by #TOFU , Trump O...
@dnkboston sure, when the parties put up people worth voting for.
If we vote regardless of the quality of candidates then sanctions low quality candidates who do us disservice once they are in office. We need higher standards.
Otherwise we get ::gestures:: all of this
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:
