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
I love how you said there was a legal dispute but then completely ignored the legal dispute.
So many Republicans simply refuse to believe it, and so many Democrats seem leaderless.
Or maybe the Democrats who would be more likely to protest it take a stance that's so anti-carbon that they can't reconcile protesting it.
I don't think that has anything to do with its death. Quite the opposite, I'd say.
It's dead because people didn't watch it anymore, so it cost too much for too little audience.
It was far too political, in the vapid, culture war of today sense. Maybe not in the political questions throughout human history sense. "Can men wear skirts?" instead of "How do we reconcile democracy vs human nature to harm?" sense.
Both political, but on very different levels.
And people just didn't care about men wearing skirts. That drama is a dime a dozen, so why tune in here?
Hopefully they can take a break and fix the franchise.
Interesting point.
And it makes me wonder if the pilots refused to participate in such a show.
Back up to the beginning of the section to see what that applies to: "This interpretation does not require abandonment of the framework"
"This interpretation" isn't being proposed in the section or justified by historical developments. Instead, it's referring to the conclusions made in previous sections not based on social change.
This part of the ruling says, given that we've already settled the major question (without citing social change), how do we handle this practical objection, and how do we put this finding into practice?
If the opinion was saying VRA was obsolete because of racism then the statement needed to be in the previous section.
Where were they wrong, and why?
Why in the world would you use a political action to resolve a legal dispute?
And jump through the extra hoops by imputing the motivations of multiple independent parties based on each others' motivations when motivations aren't relevant in the first place?
We have the legal arguments in front of us. We have the losing argument, and we have the winning argument laying out not only why it's right but also why the losing arugment is wrong.
But you're not bothering with any of that, just going right to personal attacks involving completely different governments.
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.
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:
