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
That's right.
For an awful lot of voters in the US lately they feel that they've been offered only bad choices, so they have to pick the least bad to keep the more bad out of office.
Personally, I see it as an era when ignorant loudmouths are charting the courses of major parties, neither offering good solutions, so the rest of us have to roll our eyes and work with the bad choices they give us.
I'd say that for better or worse fediverse is designed with a focus on instances, not users, so each instance sets its own rules for things like moderation and what they allow to flow down to user control.
BUT, one thing to emphasize here is that in fediverse you can't really moderate others' replies. Anyone can reply to anything. All you can do is ignore whatever replies come down the line.
It's one of those details that leads to confusion and has privacy implications.
No. Sounds like he's there to serve the committee that's not having an open meeting, and someone not on the closed attendance list tried to get in.
Where? I saw so much misreporting saying that was the reasoning behind the Callais, but that's not at all what the actual opinion said.
Has there been a record of prosecution for it?
I suppose the difficulty is in proving willfulness.
No, the redistricting was not initiated by Trump. The process was in motion before he latched onto it.
To buy the story that it was initiated by him only plays into his marketing game. It buys the dishonest rhetoric that got him reelected.
We should not support him like that.
Forget milk-toast almost resigned reactions by Democrats. The Democrats that we've elected didn't just fail to react in VA, but they actively screwed up the process, botching the amendment, acrewing over all of those who bothered voting for it, and then sat around trying to score political points over their own failure.
Things will not improve until we hold these folks accountable. We should replace every politician involved in this screwup.
We elected incompetent or dishonest Democrats to serve as opposition. Things will not improve until we replace them with Democrats who can actually be effective.
We voted for this. And we reelected so many, so we voted for it again.
We should stop.
This is one of my personal causes: What we're supposed to do here is to stop voting for and supporting representatives who continually screw us over.
SO many friends of my have strong opinions on issues that matter to them, but turn around and vote for and promote candidates with track records of acting against those specific issues.
Most of the time this is based on what the candidates say even though their actual performance in office is the opposite.
We keep electing and reelecting representatives who fail us. Then we see them standing for reelecting pointing fingers at others for their failures.
We have to stop voting for and campaigning for these jerks. Things WILL NOT improve until we hold these representatives accountable.
He didn't do just that.
So often you can see Supreme Court opinions listing out precedents and then bad reporting (and political rhetoric) claiming the exact opposite of what the opinion itself says in that regard.
Recent rulings have been laying out the precedents they were adhering to. You just have to go right to the source.
You're wrong again about what was in the ruling.
This ruling was not about allowing districts to be redrawn in a way that is partisan. Different issue, different topic, not the present case before the Court.
Perhaps you don't understand that the Supreme Court addresses specific questions put before it, and that wasn't the question before it.
THIS question was about setting districts based on race:
"The question before us now is whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination"
Partisan districting is not the question. You're getting lost in your own separate crusade.
"Voting rights activists" often don't know what they're talking about. So what of it?
The Guardian quoting a bunch of ignorant folks caught up in political hysteria doesn't exactly provide a strong foundation for any point you'd care to be making...
The Supreme Court ruling emphatically said that districts could not be redrawn in a way that would make the votes of Black people worthless.
That's the exactly OPPOSITE of what the ruling said.
Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf
But then, the definition of living wage also changes over time.
It's a bit dangerous to draw conclusions against a moving target, especially when doing a time analysis.
People want to find fights to fight.
We should be clear that Trump's so mentally deficient and cloistered that he likely isn't even consciously aware of what's happening.
That's nice.
Their latest high profile ruling was against Jim Crow, though.
@nomdeb calling names doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument to bring people over to your perspective...
The Supreme Court hands down evidence and reasoning to support its conclusions. We can all read it right there in public.
To call them names, instead of addressing their arguments, just makes you look like you're admitting you can't actually counter their conclusions.
No, the SCOTUS didn't have an opportunity to reduce partisan gerrymandering because it has no such authority.
It's not a legislative branch. It doesn't have the authority to do things outside of law.
Partisan gerrymandering is allowed constitutionally. SCOTUS can't change that, it can't rewrite the constitution. That requires a democratic processes, not an authoritative one.
... I think you're proving her point.
I've been hearing neutral academics going through the evidence for quite a while, and they back what Barrett says. Meanwhile, it seems you respond by... focusing on "big" cases, just as she said.
We really need to push back on the widespread idea that "activites" like the attacks on Iran are to be challenged by a War Powers Act. No, it's the opposite.
It's not that presidents can conduct war unless stopped by a vote, but that they need to vote of permission to start.
Without congressional approval Trump and top military brass are already acting unconstitutionally. They have already crossed the line (as in many places in the past) into impeachment territory.
But the common framing as no vote = no rejection shields him politically.
Second point, though: keep in mind that key figures in this administration simply follow the crowd of a wave of ignorant conservative blowhards. They literally don't know how government works or facts on the ground, damage they're causing.
Yes, they're war crimes, but not part of any strategic scheme. Just a bunch of idiots too oblivious to know what they're doing.
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:
