I agree, up to a point. But it becomes about phrasing. Neither method is done out of altruism.
I get the idea of what you are saying, but I think that the fallacy falls apart under any real scrutiny.
That’s just the thing - we don’t need their franchise when we can create own own structures. All being disenfranchised from them really accomplishes is absolving us of any obligation to their neo-colonial world view.
It’s easy for entitled bigots to demand the world. The pressing question for the common person might be: “Why should we care about your exclusive power trip? What is our incentive?”
Please stop doing that. “fixing” people’s comments is not clever anymore.
I think it was earlier, when Scalia et. al. struck down big chunks of the Voting Rights Act. Certain states got their quill pens out post-haste… as in the following day legislation was introduced.
Yes. That’s what triggered the passage of these laws pretty clearly. But the current push back against them from lower courts only started after Scalia died. If I had to guess left wing advocacy groups, politicians, and the usual assortment of civil rights orgs (like the ACLU) were holding back on challenging these laws under a supreme court that had already proved itself to be less than amenable to voters rights. Scalia died and that all changed over night. Even down a judge the court has shifted somewhat significantly, and would be unlikely to uphold any of this stuff. If a democratic president manages to appoint the next judge or the next few judges these ID laws, as well as current Gerrymandering approaches are likely dead in the water. There’s been a flood of challenges to voter ID laws lately, almost all (or maybe all) successful. I’m sure this being the first open presidential election under these laws had fostered plenty of them. But there seem to be a lot, and they seem to be a lot more prominent than you’d expect, and the judges are being a lot bolder about slapping them down.
You think she did that just to be “clever”? Sheesh.
Nice job (not) avoiding just what was wrong with your comment.
Oh look, you did it again:
I would use that great goalpost-moving gif, but I imagine you think that’s not clever anymore either?
That’s why it’s a fallacy. I’m saying a lot of conservatives believe that people get what they deserve and everyone has an equal chance at success and failure to achieve some kind of success is evidence of a character flaw like being lazy or stupid or immoral; or it’s evidence to support their racist perspective that “black people are all lazy.”
But their perspective is reinforced by policies and legislation that works to the detriment of minorities and poor people, so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. “You’re lazy so you don’t deserve a social safety net.” Then “you failed (without a safety net), probably because you were lazy.”
Disenfranchisement is important because it’s one of the sources of their power and it takes many forms. Not just voter ID laws, but also gerrymandering the fuck out of voting districts. It’s the reason why low voter turnout benefits conservatives. Many of them may be hostile, bigoted, and hoodwinked by their candidates, but they still turn out to vote. That can only be countered by more voting, the same way bad speech should be countered by more, opposing speech rather than by censorship.
I more or less understand and agree with what you are saying here. But my point is the irony that a political system failing with regards to basic social contract and representation is actively undoing the supposed monopoly on government itself. If people can’t participate in that franchise, they are more likely to start their own. That’s what those who perpetuate the “privileged white male just world” fallacy appear to be oblivious to.
Modifying someone’s comments, then adding FTFY is usually done to be clever. that is why it is a meme. I generally don’t engage people who engage in tactics like that, partly because I prefer rational discussion over meme-swapping. besides, I am not a republican, and I am not going to defend their voter disenfranchisement practices. If you want to believe that your political party or organization is engaging in whatever tactics they use only for the benefit of all humanity, that is great. I am somewhat more skeptical of the motives of people who seek great power or wealth.
I don’t see where the disenfranchised start their own. Do you have a real world example of what you’re referring to?
Why would you? Do you think that established political and economic groups would be eager to publicize that sort of thing?
It just seems like an obvious conclusion. It’s more or less what I am working on, and it seems more practical than the alternative. Humans are social, so they associate and form the requisite connections for what needs doing. If the authority of a representative democracy is based upon fair representation and the social contract, then by disenfranchisement they are actually undermining the basis of their authority. What obligation towards the state does somebody deliberately not represented have?
What forms does it take, this “voter inflation” that you equate with voter suppression?
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is just about always preferable to doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
Inflating your ego by feeding the homeless is alot better than inflating your ego by beating up homeless people. This is on that level.
Everyone deserves their vote. Get out the vote is ethical even if it benefits one party over the other. Disenfranchisement is unethical.
The GOtV volunteers I know have never asked for political affiliation or credo, and encourage people to vote, regardless of for whom. They’re not Democratic operatives, some are even gasp! conservative.
Sometimes that effort helps the Democratic party (ref: 2008 Presidential election), sometimes it hurts the party (ref: 2008 California Prop 8).
But in terms of elections higher turn out generally equates to less success for conservatives. Which is why you see all these videos of conservatives saying that and all the voter suppression and other anti-democratic strategies.
In terms of get out the vote, and registration drives I don’t believe your allowed to tie things to party affiliation or what have. And doing so is sort of ideologically at odds with idea. In effect if you start discouraging people you disagree with, “losing” their registrations etc. You’re now engaged in voter suppression rather than fostering enfranchisement.
Eta: oh and gotv and prop 8 were issues of turn out not registration/access/disenfranchisement. As the electorate increases in overall size and demographically more resembles the general population you see the leftward advantage. But people actually have to turn out for that to have effect
They jumped the shark the moment they nominated Donald Trump, and they’ve landed in the chum-filled tank.
Here’s hoping, but yeah, that’s “Republicans,” not “the right.”
If Trump does doom the Republican Party, “the right” will certainly survive and take new forms. Hell, the right is actually winning on all sorts of fronts. The Democratic Party itself seems as far to the right now as middling Republicans used to be (Overton Window, etc.). The Republican brand may be in decline, but power on the right seems as strong as ever.
‘Let them eat brioche’ France? Tsarist Russia?
my only regret is that I have but one like to give