Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Luckily, there is very little grammar on the average ballot.

Have you tried looking at the back?

NC has very few initiatives.

B wrote:If you think you're opinion is better than or more valid than these people because they are illiterate or unschooled or poor or single than you're an asshole and just as shitty as a racist.

Though it feels good to say, no sizable amount of the population really believes this and I doubt you do either. I bet you believe experts who are trained in their areas. I bet you go to a licensed doctor. Send your kids to an accredited school. I bet you don't want a room full of old men determining a woman's right to choose. I bet in a thousand tiny ways today you silently affirmed you believe that for some tasks there are people better suited than others. That some opinions are in fact better and more valid than others and one of the big reasons is because of literacy, education, and yes the wealth and privilege that provides those things. This is a hard thing for anyone to accept about themselves and even harder when you think what it might mean applied more broadly to efforts to make a more equitable society. We don't want to harm someone because they dropped out to care for a cancer-stricken loved one. Or because they were born in the wrong zip code or their parents were abusive or whichever of the infinite reasons someone might fall into one those categories. But maybe part of that is creating a political environment where active participation is subject to consistent basic entry criteria so participants are guaranteed to have a minimum level of motivation and a basic understanding of the system before deciding what to do with it.

God, you are an elitist prick. We are talking about being one voice among many chosing a slate of politicians. Everyone gets their say.

I'm not asking an 18 year old to treat my cancer.

Bi, you’re talking about an oligarchy. A return to the Middle Ages, establishing a learned nobility to decide what’s best for the unlearned masses. How’d that go and what wonderful things did it result in, and ingrain into our cultures to this day?

So to summarize:

The Republican nominee for vice president is in favor of restricting the voting power of people who don’t have children.

Bi_3 can see the logic/merit of restricting voting rights in that and other circumstances.

Nothing more will be gleaned from this back and forth, which is somehow now about a pretend literacy requirement that has exactly one advocate and is silly.

Would Bi_3 be a just feudal lord towards his vassals? Someone start a poll.

Here in Australia it's compulsory to vote once you turn 18. No literacy requirement, just an idea that its your country so you have a responsibility to at least show up on voting day. My brother the specialist doctor has to vote and my unemployable, borderline mentally deficient nephew does too. What's the consensus on this situation - good for democracy or bad?

I don't like compulsory voting. Not voting is a vote against the system. Forcing people to vote can give cover to a system that doesn't actually have popular support.

Higgs wrote:What's the consensus on this situation - good for democracy or bad?

Obviously good for democracy.

Low political literacy or engagement is what is bad for democracy.

JD Vance to his Davenport after a GOP AI bot scrapes RM to generate new talking points this week:

The wealthy and privileged are never greedy, or completely out of touch with the problems of the poor and unprivileged, and always care for the greater good, are always empathetic, and never don't give a fuck about anybody but their own. So only they should vote because they'll make the best decisions for everybody.

Leatherhead wrote:The wealthy and privileged are never greedy, or completely out of touch with the problems of the poor and unprivileged, and always care for the greater good, are always empathetic, and never don't give a fuck about anybody but their own. So only they should vote because they'll make the best decisions for everybody.

At least w-

At least they can read, amirite?

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't like compulsory voting. Not voting is a vote against the system. Forcing people to vote can give cover to a system that doesn't actually have popular support.

If that's your stance, couldn't you just write in Mickey Mouse?

In todays edition of “they hate you for believing today what they believed yesterday”:

The dangers of the low information voter

Bi_3 wrote:In todays edition of “they hate you for believing today what they believed yesterday”:

The dangers of the low information voter

Why even make people wait til they’re 18?

Can’t read? That’s ok, come over here and vote.

Got a pulse? Come on over here and vote.

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't like compulsory voting. Not voting is a vote against the system. Forcing people to vote can give cover to a system that doesn't actually have popular support.

If that's your stance, couldn't you just write in Mickey Mouse?

Why use the state to force people to vote?

Theoretically or historically at least, an aristocracy still has to worry about the masses, because the masses have veto power in the form of rope, guns, and guillotines. This is why noblesse oblige (the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged) is not just a chivalrous virtue, but a survival mechanism.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:If you think you're opinion is better than or more valid than these people because they are illiterate or unschooled or poor or single than you're an asshole and just as shitty as a racist.

Though it feels good to say, no sizable amount of the population really believes this and I doubt you do either. I bet you believe experts who are trained in their areas. I bet you go to a licensed doctor. Send your kids to an accredited school. I bet you don't want a room full of old men determining a woman's right to choose. I bet in a thousand tiny ways today you silently affirmed you believe that for some tasks there are people better suited than others. That some opinions are in fact better and more valid than others and one of the big reasons is because of literacy, education, and yes the wealth and privilege that provides those things. This is a hard thing for anyone to accept about themselves and even harder when you think what it might mean applied more broadly to efforts to make a more equitable society. We don't want to harm someone because they dropped out to care for a cancer-stricken loved one. Or because they were born in the wrong zip code or their parents were abusive or whichever of the infinite reasons someone might fall into one those categories. But maybe part of that is creating a political environment where active participation is subject to consistent basic entry criteria so participants are guaranteed to have a minimum level of motivation and a basic understanding of the system before deciding what to do with it.

This post makes me sad. In what world does this not create the scenario where the voters vote on policies/laws to continually keep the non-voters from getting "qualified"? I love that you think that it would be some utopia where the "non voters" would have every opportunity to better themselves and become voters. In a system designed to keep them from voting.

“Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

While a good quote, I don't think it adequately gets across just how shitty democracy really is.

BurtReynolds wrote:“Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

While a good quote, I don't think it adequately gets across just how shitty democracy really is.

if democracy is run the way it is supposed to be it can be fine and dandy. it is when those in power (regardless of party affiliation) are in it for power and power only is when democracy fails