6 ms·

In the real world, sure. The Internet would have us believe that civil war is imminent. We need to stop letting the 1% of people who bother to post online dri

In the real world, sure. The Internet would have us believe that civil war is imminent. We need to stop letting the 1% of people who bother to post online drive our national dialog. We have put the crazies in charge of the asylum.

jstummbillig 4y ago
> In the real world, sure. Can you point at one? A council with "widely diverse viewpoints" that is actually an effective, tie-braking decision maker?
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  Supreme Court justices, despite their huge partisan differences and passionate disagreements on many individual cases, often talk about how they personally enjoy working with each other. My impression is that this is true of many Congressional committees as well, although it's less legible there because most congressmembers find it politically advantageous to talk about how mad they are at the other party.
  - UncleOxidant 4y ago
    There's a huge amount of history there, though. It didn't just get formed this week. It's got some members who have been on the court since the early 90s. Some since the late 90s and others in the aughts. The SCOTUS has long-lived institutional memory and norms of behavior. It's members also tend to become somewhat isolated from what's going on in the culture outside.
    - jjk166 4y ago
      Every institution was new at some point.
- selwynii 4y ago
  Sure. The Oversight Board. Facebook did exactly this years ago. oversightboard.com/decisions
  - jstummbillig 4y ago
    Interesting! Glancing at the board, there is a clear makeup of highly educated, decorated, democratic, liberal-ish people. I would be hard pressed to call this setup one that focuses on "wildly diverse viewpoints".
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- 1123581321 4y ago
  Judge panels (like SCOTUS), county boards, city councils, school boards, non-profit boards and councils, corporate boards.
  - least 4y ago
    I actually don't think this is the case. Almost all of these in the US are largely bipartisan, not nonpartisan. In some cases they also tend to self select for people that favor certain viewpoints. NIMBYism is prevalent in local government, for example. They're optimized to serve the interests of the two prevailing parties in the US, which aren't the only two legitimate viewpoints.
    - 1123581321 4y ago
      I’ve had better experiences and I also find that issues that aren’t neatly D or R weigh more heavily on them in smaller or more local jurisdictions. I think there is a good case to be made for a similar dynamic on a social media’s board, where the mechanics of good moderation and guidance, combined with cordial operating principles, should be too front-and-center to ignore.
  - jstummbillig 4y ago
    I am not super familiar with US judicial bodies and what their mandate actually entails, but, in general, what judges do fundamentally revolves around interpreting laws and/or constitutions. Twitter does, of course, also have to comply with law. In regards to this council we are however specifically focusing on an area, that is not already decided by law. Coming up with a decision in a "wildly diverse group" without the need to argue along law (because that is not what your mandate asks for), is a very, very different setup. I feel the other examples are problematic for other reasons, i.e. "city councils": In the EU people get elected into these positions and no one mechanism will be placed for them to have "wildly different viewpoints". They get elected to get something done, which will then revolve around making compromises, or just not being involved in the process.
    - 1123581321 4y ago
PaulsWallet 4y ago
> The Internet would have us believe that civil war is imminent. The person who could arguably be considered the third most powerful politician in the US just had their own broken into and their spouse assaulted in a suspected act of domestic terrorism. I wouldn't say "imminent" but if you don't think the possibility is at least somewhere on the table I would consider that being naive.
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  And you've got MAGA "prophets" out there "prophesying" about the "Angel of Death" visiting their political opponents before the end of 2022.
  - norwalkbear 4y ago
    Wtf, pls go on
    - UncleOxidant 4y ago
      https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-rally-warns-lindsey-graham-top-dems-face-death-years-end-1754069 https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-rally-warns-lindsey-graha...
  - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
    And you have Bernie supporters shooting up GOP softball games, democrats setting fire to court houses, and radical groups running over Christmas parades attendees because they were white. Still not as bad or unstable as the 1960s.
    - jsterSC 4y ago
      You have GOP party members actively supporting a coup. And intend to do so again. Worse than the 1960s.
    - acdha 4y ago
      There’s a key difference: Darrell Brooks didn’t launch his attack for Democratic goals and no Democrat supports his actions. The protesters in Portland did not have the support of Democratic leaders and tended to criticize them almost as heavily they do Republicans. James Hodgkinson was definitely a leftist but his actions got immediate and complete rejection from Democratic leaders, including Bernie Sanders unequivocal condemnation. Contrast this with the way Republican politicians and media are hesitant to condemn the January 6th attack or cross Trump on almost any topic, and calls for political violence have been the subject of jokes and outright support from leaders & candidates for years. Those topics poll favorably with far too many Republicans to consider them fringe issues. That’s scary for anyone who believes in fair elections or the rule of law because, as we’ve seen, those people feel emboldened and are expanding. There are a large number of election deniers running for office this year and they’re all members of one party, with almost no internal pushback.

jstummbillig 4y ago

> In the real world, sure. Can you point at one? A council with "widely diverse viewpoints" that is actually an effective, tie-braking decision maker?

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
Supreme Court justices, despite their huge partisan differences and passionate disagreements on many individual cases, often talk about how they personally enjoy working with each other. My impression is that this is true of many Congressional committees as well, although it's less legible there because most congressmembers find it politically advantageous to talk about how mad they are at the other party.
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  There's a huge amount of history there, though. It didn't just get formed this week. It's got some members who have been on the court since the early 90s. Some since the late 90s and others in the aughts. The SCOTUS has long-lived institutional memory and norms of behavior. It's members also tend to become somewhat isolated from what's going on in the culture outside.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Every institution was new at some point.
selwynii 4y ago
Sure. The Oversight Board. Facebook did exactly this years ago. oversightboard.com/decisions
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  Interesting! Glancing at the board, there is a clear makeup of highly educated, decorated, democratic, liberal-ish people. I would be hard pressed to call this setup one that focuses on "wildly diverse viewpoints".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
1123581321 4y ago
Judge panels (like SCOTUS), county boards, city councils, school boards, non-profit boards and councils, corporate boards.
- least 4y ago
  I actually don't think this is the case. Almost all of these in the US are largely bipartisan, not nonpartisan. In some cases they also tend to self select for people that favor certain viewpoints. NIMBYism is prevalent in local government, for example. They're optimized to serve the interests of the two prevailing parties in the US, which aren't the only two legitimate viewpoints.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    I’ve had better experiences and I also find that issues that aren’t neatly D or R weigh more heavily on them in smaller or more local jurisdictions. I think there is a good case to be made for a similar dynamic on a social media’s board, where the mechanics of good moderation and guidance, combined with cordial operating principles, should be too front-and-center to ignore.
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  I am not super familiar with US judicial bodies and what their mandate actually entails, but, in general, what judges do fundamentally revolves around interpreting laws and/or constitutions. Twitter does, of course, also have to comply with law. In regards to this council we are however specifically focusing on an area, that is not already decided by law. Coming up with a decision in a "wildly diverse group" without the need to argue along law (because that is not what your mandate asks for), is a very, very different setup. I feel the other examples are problematic for other reasons, i.e. "city councils": In the EU people get elected into these positions and no one mechanism will be placed for them to have "wildly different viewpoints". They get elected to get something done, which will then revolve around making compromises, or just not being involved in the process.
  - 1123581321 4y ago

PaulsWallet 4y ago

> The Internet would have us believe that civil war is imminent. The person who could arguably be considered the third most powerful politician in the US just had their own broken into and their spouse assaulted in a suspected act of domestic terrorism. I wouldn't say "imminent" but if you don't think the possibility is at least somewhere on the table I would consider that being naive.

UncleOxidant 4y ago
And you've got MAGA "prophets" out there "prophesying" about the "Angel of Death" visiting their political opponents before the end of 2022.
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  Wtf, pls go on
  - UncleOxidant 4y ago
    https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-rally-warns-lindsey-graham-top-dems-face-death-years-end-1754069 https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-rally-warns-lindsey-graha...
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  And you have Bernie supporters shooting up GOP softball games, democrats setting fire to court houses, and radical groups running over Christmas parades attendees because they were white. Still not as bad or unstable as the 1960s.
  - jsterSC 4y ago
    You have GOP party members actively supporting a coup. And intend to do so again. Worse than the 1960s.
  - acdha 4y ago
    There’s a key difference: Darrell Brooks didn’t launch his attack for Democratic goals and no Democrat supports his actions. The protesters in Portland did not have the support of Democratic leaders and tended to criticize them almost as heavily they do Republicans. James Hodgkinson was definitely a leftist but his actions got immediate and complete rejection from Democratic leaders, including Bernie Sanders unequivocal condemnation. Contrast this with the way Republican politicians and media are hesitant to condemn the January 6th attack or cross Trump on almost any topic, and calls for political violence have been the subject of jokes and outright support from leaders & candidates for years. Those topics poll favorably with far too many Republicans to consider them fringe issues. That’s scary for anyone who believes in fair elections or the rule of law because, as we’ve seen, those people feel emboldened and are expanding. There are a large number of election deniers running for office this year and they’re all members of one party, with almost no internal pushback.