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
KBJ misunderstood the facts of the case, that the other eight understood.
This was emphatically NOT about incidental restrictions on free speech. Had it been then the opinion would have likely gone the other way.
This was about direct censorship of disfavored speech, not incidental restriction.
This is an instance where being the outlier is a pretty good indicator that maybe the person misunderstands what they're looking at.
It's just nuts to say this opens such a can of worms. She might as well have been talking about the implications of our living on a flat earth.
But this case was emphatically not about subjecting young people to conversion therapy practices, and that was key to the contect of the decision.
Where, specifically, did you find the opinion irrational?
In an 8-1 ruling it's a tall order to say all eight acted irrationally together.
Interesting analogy.
The poor solicitor for Trump is going to be put in an unwinnable position, having to perform for Trump instead of focusing on trying to somehow win in front of the justices.
Poor Vincenzo. I guess the best he can do is try to trick Trump into thinking he won.
@PaulDitz if that's true then it should have been brought up to the Court.
It wasn't put before them, though, so they weren't able to consider that in their deliberations.
In fact, as I recall the plaintiffs pretty much admitted the opposite.
And remember, we're in this position because RBG openly tried to time her retirement.
Hopefully folks learned a lesson.
@MusiqueNow Well it can be both, I suppose.
Protections against government censorship are especially important when government gets to decide what is malpractice and thus subject to censorship.
That's the point.
@normative.bsky.social Exactly!
Under this ruling states can't censor anyone ranging from an activist to a medical provider that wants to support or promote gender-affirming care.
Well, read the opinion and it's clear how it could happen, and why it's not awful.
Don't ask Slate. The SCOTUS itself tells you why it comes to rulings.
That's like saying you have a great design for a perpetual motion machine, it's just more complicated to explain.
No, your proposal just isn't very realistic no matter how much additional complications you want to add to it. The incentives don't align that way.
The government of Iran wants to prosecute US officials under US law? What in the world? Plenty of us in the country want to see that happen, but what does Iran have to do with it?
If there's no other way that could happen other than a foreign government bringing suit then there's no way that could happen.
@paul No, that's the opposite of what the opinion said.
Kids cannot be subject to harmful conversion therapy according to the opinion. The state has every right to regulate such therapy, if you want to call it therapy, and the opinion is clear about that.
The only thing the opinion says is not allowed is censorship. Everything else is on the table.
OR when there's an event like this that seems to run up against what you think would happen, it's an opportunity to reconsider whether maybe you misunderstand what's going on.
When the decision is so solid, then maybe the reporting about the case has been misleading, and there's more to the story.
When the half of the Court that is good comes down like this, well maybe the decision is simply correct.
Yes, in this case the opinion explicitly recognizes that there is room for regulation of conversion therapy. It's just one little method of regulation that isn't constitutional.
@cwarzel.bsky.social Well it is honest...
Every once in awhile Trump's die hard supporters accidentally lay out the case for him being a failure and a loser.
They just lack the self-awareness to hear themselves saying it, as they only interpret things as confirming their biases.
It does remind me of the moment in Arrested Development where Lucille says her husband is no criminal mastermind as he can barely operate the paper shredder.
#BrianKilmeade: #NoKings?! You think #Trump is a king? If he was a king he wouldn't have been such a failure on this and this and this and this......
Meh, Democrats could unseat Johnson today if they wanted to. They already demonstrated this with the speakership battles of the past couple of years.
The Democrats that we elected aren't interested in leadership. They'd rather score political points on the drama.
It WILL BE up to them to find a real leader? No, it already is, and they're not interested in the task.
We're not holding them accountable for that.
I think you overestimate the chances of success for your armchair quarterback strategy there.
The Iranian government might not be so eager to cooperate in your plan.
The ruling explicitly recognizes that restrictions on conversion therapy have their place for protecting the public, so it largely upholds the law.
It just says the law can't be applied to talking. But the rest can stand just fine, according to the opinion.
The opinions spell out the criteria.
In the Chiles case today the criterion was not violating the 1st Amendment's bar on censorship.
Just goes to show we need nongovernmental institutions to do this scientific work.
A political organization is going to politicize. It's the nature of the beast.
That the #SOCUTS ruling on the Colorado law was 8-1 should give a lot of people pause to realize they may not understand the case, and that so much of the reporting has gotten it wrong.
If this was as draconian a turn as so many describe then it wouldn't have been 8-1.
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:
