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
No, it's the exact opposite.
The ruling is clear that this decision reinforces democracy, emphasizing the limits that politicians have to put their fingers on the scales against the democratic processes.
This piece gets it exactly backwards.
I'd say it's a little different now as previously the US at least engaged with other countries to shift global norms, even if the shifts might have been... substantial.
Today, though, it's a complete disregard for the norms, a childish rebellion, not engagement.
At least before there was a second set of eyes on a proposal, a moderating factor even if we would have liked it to be even more moderated. Now that's gone.
No, it's not aiding Putin to fail to aid.
I imagine they're trolling the opposition.
And the opposition will fall for it, playing into their hands.
I find it sad or a clear symbol of how pathetic the opposition to Trump is.
By stereotype, the American left/Democrats are supposed to have the creatives, the marketing type, and with all of the stuff Trump has put on the table for criticism, that's the best marketing they could come up with?
It's awful branding that Trump supporters were eating up.
But it's all choir preaching at this point.
It's almost as if No Kings activists don't actually care about external support--they're just chanting a slogan within their existing membership and having a party.
I mean, they turned it that way.
The Americans' intentional and active undermining of well-established norms, that were established for good reason, did turn so much upside down.
The rest of the world is having to clean up the mess.
Trump has no choice but to just make stuff up again.
His brain is mush. He is completely disconnected from reality at this point, so he couldn't engage substantially if he tried.
...which he has no reason to do anyway.
Trump has no choice but to just make stuff up again.
His brain is mush. He is completely disconnected from reality at this point, so he couldn't engage substantially if he tried.
...which he has no reason to do anyway.
To be clear, whether it matters or not, Trump and so many of his supporters live in an echo chamber where they are unaware of stuff like mass starvation.
It's not that they acquiesced to this stuff but that they're simply not aware of it, even actively refusing to believe it.
Mainstream conservatives talk about "left-wing extremism" constantly, and they sure aren't referring to pro-business free-market Liberals!
They focus on culture war stuff like trans issues and immigration.
It needs to be emphasized that the Monsanto case is about federal vs state regulation.
It's not really about a "multibillion-dollar wave of lawsuits over Roundup cancer claims." Those are just the triggering elements.
It would be like saying the trial of a guy accused of murder during a robbery is about the money he stole. No, the money just set the ball in motion.
One reason this distinction is important is because if we don't like it we need to demand that our legislators change the federal or state regulations. This is about democracy, not about Monsanto.
@drmike Wow, Robert Reich is writing for The Guardian now? It's as if folks in the US have finally gotten tired of his shtick.
It's funny that he starts off personalizing SCOTUS decisions itself effective condemnation (or at least ignorance) of the entire philosophy of the US government.
Anyway, if you check out the actual transcript of the speech you'll see that, as is his way, Reich mischaracterizes what it actually said, as hinted by his disjointed, out of context quotations--always a red flag.
Reich went down that path long ago. He's no longer a serious commentator.
The ruling is correct. Go after the department, not the individual officers, when they follow department rules that may need reform.
Then, let the department penalize the individuals and change its rules if need be.
That's a much better outcome than just getting the heads of a few low level individuals but letting the rest of the system keep going.
No. It's not tendentiousness or mendaciousness. It's simply a court recognizing practical issues of timing of opinions vs a fast-moving situation with actual harms involved, and taking steps to simply avoid those harms of timing.
Some folks are reading too much into this, circularly arguing that it's really important and therefore worth huge attention and therefore really important.
No, this is merely a bit of paperwork to resolve realities of process.
I don't think you're reading this correctly.
Sounds like the Court already knows how its redistricting rulings are going to come out, it just hasn't issued them yet, so it's simply avoiding the harms that would be caused by mere timing.
It's not about precedent. It's simply practicality.
The right way to handle a corrupt judge or justice is through the legislative branch, who has the authority to impeach and remove.
Unfortunately we keep electing and reelecting representatives who are ineffective, almost proudly so.
We need to stop reelecting these jerks.
You say
"the Court’s defenders make arguments that sound outwardly reasonable, but that depend entirely on cherry-picking their examples and ignoring the counterexamples"
but that comes after you also said
"the memos actually bespeak a decision that was deeply principled"
which is more of what I've heard.
Those aren't counterexamples but statements of principle. They can't be cherrypicked because they're not based on example.
I think you have this wrong.
The technology behind Fediverse, ActivityPub, doesn't support that kind of thing, sadly. It's one of the big engineering misses of this platform.
Fediverse is all about instances, not about users. It's unfortunate, but at this point it's baked in. They can't really change it now.
But then, a lot of the developers prefer it that way, nevermind how it lets users down.
THIS.
Watch Patel perform in pubilc and it's clear that he knows his job is to roll around in the mud, to stage a fight, not to do anything serious there.
Trump's supporters want a staged WWE wrestling match. So that's what this administration is putting on.
Patel knows what he's doing.
Correction: Trump [always] chickens out on Russia to attempt to partially mitigate his screwup wrt Iran.
So many mainstream Republicans continue to demand harsh treatment of Russia and oppose the lifting of sanctions.
But Trump, being a spineless follower, waffles on who he's following on any given day.
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:
