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 always like to emphasize that the presidential administration doesn't run America but rather one department of many within one government among many of one country that is far more than its government.
The reason this distinction is important is because it emphasizes how little power these folks actually have against other institutions in the country, unless those other institutions support them or acquiesce to what they're doing.
It's about holding other institutions accountable for sanctioning the administration's decisions.
No reason to reach for the conspiracy theory when the simple explanation is that bookies wanted money.
It's a great reminder of the dangers of EVER tying control of significant social institutions to purely political institutions like government.
There was always and always will be figures like Trump coming in. Don't tie important things to that ship.
This gets it backwards, though.
If you watch how Musk engages with the public, his fans in particular, over they years it's often the fans making a bunch of sci-fi bullshit promises that he accepts.
SO MANY TIMES I watched idiot fans asking Musk if he was going to do whatever, and he'd even push back to say no that seems unlikely, and they keep pressing until he just says, "Yeah, whatever," and lets them have it.
This is a pattern that has played out so often with so many public figures, and I think with increasing frequency in the social media age.
I wish we were all more aware of it.
If nothing else, it basically made Trump.
This headline is pretty misleading and the article glosses over the critical point: Exactly how does it imagine the controversy getting to the Supreme Court in the first place?
Without a path for someone to actually bring a case before the Court the Court lacks the authority to "upend Congress power". So no, it's unlikely that the headline is correct.
And it goes even more off the rails from there. Even IF SCOTUS addressed the WPA, which is not explained how that would be but IF, it would likely magnify, not upend, "Congress power" since the WPA itself moves power from Congress to the Executive.
Really this comes down to public misunderstanding of presidential power to engage in war. The power rests in Congress. WPA can't legally change that, but we accept that it did.
Why do you think they're not too stupid?
I mean seriously, have you heard them? Why give them that credit?
A lot of what Raskin writes here is not only wrong but actually serves as the member seeking to duck accountability for his role in sanctioning the program.
Right off the bat, the slush fund "purports to draw from the Judgment Fund"? Well right, and it's exactly why the Judgement Fund shouldn't have been funded by Congress in the way that it was.
This has been a problem for a long time, and Raskin bears some responsibility for it.
We need to hold folks like him accountable for being part of the problem.
Another example of "to understand US politics in this moment":
MAGA supporters are voicing confusion about why more big name acts aren't headlining a concert on the National Mall.
Same as when they were recently voicing confusion about why World Cup tickets weren't selling more quickly.
US conservatives outright say Trump is really popular, almost everyone loves him, he's awesome, and folks who don't say they love him are really just hiding it. They secretly do.
All of this evidence to the contrary, well, it's all fake news.
And they govern based on that.
@EthicalProfessor @gottalaff.bsky.social
I think folks talking about shock or surprise at Court decisions don't spend nearly enough time wondering if maybe their surprise at the outcome reveals a misunderstanding of what's going on.
So many of these outcomes are completely reasonable if the case is understood. Unfortunately, far too few actually take the time to understand the case.
volkris
boosted
With the four decisions #SCOTUS handed down today, we crossed the halfway point for rulings in argued cases. 32 down (first image, sorted by date of decision); 25 to go (second image, sorted by date of argument). And that doesn't include the Lisa Cook emergency application. It's gonna be a June...
Not having a LinkedIn profile is closely guarding a secret?
Come on.
More like they want to avoid the stupid drama and sensationalism by bringing up something that doesn't actually matter.
If you compare what they're saying against the actual Supreme Court documents, well they're just misreporting what the SCOTUS actually ruled.
We can read for ourselves that they're wrong.
This statement seemed pretty telling.
US conservatives seem to assume the military can do anything unless proven otherwise. In theory there are limits, but in practice they think the military is the awesome unstoppable force.
This attitude explains a lot.
#BrianKilmeade show guest ― IN THEORY there are limits to what the military can do, but...#USPolitics #Iran #war
Don't overlook the simple: AI is going deeper than blockchain because it's easier to explain in an elevator pitch to everyday people.
The rest is getting into the engineering under the hood. Yeah, it enables it, but there's simply this hook for adoption here.
So this case wasn't about free speech at all, but about judicial process defined by statute. It was a question about where challengers legally take their challenge under the law.
I know that doesn't make for clickable headlines or compelling political rhetoric, but to say it's about free speech is simply inaccurate.
... why in the world would they?
SCOTUS is a completely different branch of government with a completely different chain of command doing a completely different job.
How do you figure Thomas's dissent reinforces that view?
You really give Trump too much credit.
All of this districting stuff was happening before he was involved, and as is often his pattern, he jumps onto the horse that's already pulling ahead so he can claim credit.
He himself doesn't know what he's talking about, though.
@boggin that wasn't necessarily the goal, though.
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:
