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
Well, what are specific examples of why you're taking exception to his stance?
I just emphasize: it's not that they need to get out of the way, it's that voters need to stop electing them.
Voters have the power. Voters actively go out to cast votes. When we act like it's up to the politicians we disempower ourselves.
I think we all suffer a lot of betrayal these days, we all feel that we put trust in people who turned out to be untrustworthy.
Remember: polling shows a historic loss of faith among the public in institutions ranging from the press through churches. All of that is a form of betrayal.
The part that I notice, though, is how often people keep believing their betrayers, as if they want to maintain the time before the betrayal was seen.
volkris
boosted
Favorite new thing learning French was encountering the phrase "un peu trop hexagonale" meaning "a bit too hexagonal" to mean "a bit too French" because France is roughly the shape of hexagon. I'd encountered "l'Hexagone" plenty of times, but didn't know one could be hexagonale.
The AP headline misrepresents what happened.
The Supreme Court did not reject the VA congressional map as that wasn't before them. It also did not reject a bid to restore congressional map favoring Democrats. Again, that wasn't before them.
And it really wouldn't have been before them since that's not how the Supreme Court works.
The SC declined to get involved by temporarily pausing the state court's ruling. That's all.
Don't tell them to fight. Stop reelecting the individuals who failed to fight.
It's really on us that we acknowledge that these individuals keep screwing up but we actively vote to return them to office anyway.
They botched this whole process... but they'll use their failure to score political points and get our votes.
Remember: stop electing and reelecting the representatives who have been ineffective at promoting the things you care abuot.
We keep watching representatives fail and then reelecting them anyway.
It's really up to them to get the job done. And up to us to stop choosing to give them the power that they fail to use.
@Nordstahl not sure what you're referring to exactly, but have you considered that maybe what you believed as a child, well maybe you might have learned better as you grew up?
Well, it's federal law coupled with Biden era action on regulation that blocked the availability.
The lower court was just pointing out that this is what the law said.
Good or bad depending on your perspective, I suppose.
Seems like getting back to normal order without major missteps being papered over by emergency orders from the court.
This is for either of the other branches to fix. The Court needs to stay out of it.
This shit is from 2023.
The same Hakeem Jeffries was one of the major figures who dropped the ball on the Democratic side.
It's a stretch to read this as injecting into politics.
The Court didn't do anything to the election. It vacated a lower court ruling that has been clearly shown to have been in error, sending the matter back to them for further processing.
The drawing of maps is STILL subject to that lower court's oversight.
This is how the machinery of the legal process works without regard to politics. This was the court STAYING OUT OF politics, leaving it to the lower courts to adjudicate.
That's the opposite of what the Supreme Court said.
Yes, a lot of people get this backwards, and it's worth emphasizing that a lot of politicians are looking to score political points by jumping on this bandwagon regardless of what the courts actually said.
But in the end SCOTUS recognized protected classes defined by law and said they must be afforded representation. Any state eliminating such representation is violating the law and the SCOTUS ruling can be used to go after them.
Idiot politicians saying otherwise are... well, racism isn't exactly correlated with intelligence.
No. In their opinion the Supreme Court said you can't. It's against multiple factors of US law.
Any state drawing districts so as to take black voters' power away is in violation of the Supreme Court opinion and stands to be sued on the grounds laid out by the Court.
Sometimes the conservative talk show hosts setting US policy outright say they don't know what's going on.
But hey, ignorance never stops them.
Still it's fun to highlight these moments to reinforce that there's no grant conspiracy here, just a bunch of people who don't know how the world works fiddling with the controls.
#BrianKilmeade ― Tickets to the World Cup in the US aren't being bought for some reason. I don't know why.#USPolitics #WorldCup
There are serious problems, both legal and practical, with all of those proposals.
But the part worth highlighting is how they would be a detriment to democracy and democratic principles, undermining the institutions that we put in place to amplify peoples' voices.
You're framing the issue backwards.
The status quo in the US has drugs being illegal until allowed, for better or worse.
In this case, the feds claimed to allow the drug, but basically admitted they didn't follow legal procedure for allowing it.
So this is not about whether to allow restrictions on the drug--that's just the norm--but whether to recognize federal efforts to approve the drug for sale.
What lies? And how is this biased?
A lower court handed down a ruling that's not compatible with the state of US law, so the appeal summarily called for a reexamination, as is completely consistent and appropriate.
The sad thing is that we'll probably reelect the Virginia (and national) politicians that botched the redistricting process in VA.
Of all the seats that needed to change, at least to different representatives in the same party, those are the real tragedy.
Republicans think lots of goofy stuff. We need to elect better.
The reason it's not nearly as extreme as those other cases is because this is merely reversing illegal orders by lower courts.
It's not imposing or justifying anything like racial regulations. In fact, the ruling emphasized that racist policies are illegal. Instead, this is just saying a lower court issued a ruling that doesn't match US law.
This is about court action. That needs to be understood.
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:
