They ain't coming for anyone. You just need to be able to demonstrate some basic grasp on our system of government if you want to vote. And if you don't have it, you simply get the free pamphlet from the Post Office, the one with all the questions AND ANSWERS in it, exactly as they are on the test and learn it.
If you're too lazy or too incompetent to do that, you don't get to vote.
Being willfully ignorant or stupid is NOT a protected class.
AD, what I have never understood about you is how you can grasp the importance (and complications) of free speech, but when it comes to voting and other rights you toss the concepts out the window.
How can you not see that we MUST freely include the least palatable, most offensive (uneducated voters) for the system to be authentic and functional? If there are tests, it is not a free system.
PS My word verification is: neakd. What word do you think that looks like to me? :-)
How about for Alzheimer's patients who think they live in 1962 and want to vote against Zod the Impaler and in favor of those little orange bits in cole-slaw?
How about a full-blown psychotic who happens to wander into the polling place because the voices told him it was world headquarters for his mother's jello mold?
How about neurologically dead patients (e.g., Terri Schiavo) who mostly communicate with the world through imaginary eye contact with their can't-face-the-facts mommies and scamming psychics? (This one, incidentally, actually plays out again and again with voters who supposedly insist on voting a straight Democratic ticket. Sad, really. They just need to unplug them and let them go.)
How about the guy with an IQ of about 50 whose daily decision-making quota is filled to overflowing by having to sort out whether to get on the bus with Mickey or Donald painted on the door?
How about 55? 60? 75? Or if you don't like IQ, how about developmental competence age? Would developed to a 15-year-old level do it? How about 12? 10? 5? Six months? Where's your cut-off there, or is there none, and does that actually sound reasonable?
How about the bus-load of ACORN-registered and driven old-folks-home people who haven't the foggiest clue where they're at or what they're doing, but know which block to check because that nice Ms. Tawnisha told them?
The necessity to meet certain minimums in order to do practically ANYTHING is simply a fact of life, and one that needs applied to (probably especially) voting.
It may not be PC to say so, but there are in fact people who are too stupid, too ignorant, too incompetent, and too lazy to be allowed to be jet pilots, or brain surgeons, or grocery clerks, or ditch diggers, or drivers, or to even just be out wandering around without supervision, even if their ignorance or failure to qualify has nothing to do with their native intelligence, but simply that they were too lazy to figure out how it works.
I don't let some half-wit slacker-dude perform surgery on me because he might be smart enough to do it, but just hadn't got around to doing the work involved in getting that pesky medical degree.
And there are CERTAINLY people who are in any of those classes who should NOT be (and are not) allowed to vote.
Granted, those are extreme cases - but so are those cases in which the mouth-breathing ignorance is self-inflicted either specifically or as a result of general apathetic laziness, and no effort to fix it is made.
Willful ignorance and flagrantly exhibited stupidity should be as much an excluding factor as profound and crippling physiological brain-damage because, willful or not, stupid is stupid.
b. There is no "unsavory" aspect about it. 2+2 is 4. If you answer "5" or "blue," you're just wrong - like an incorrect answer on any of the three FACT questions I gave above - wrong, not "different," or "alternate opinion."
It's not an opinion, so there's nothing unsavory about it, but the fact that you don't know the answer and can't be bothered to learn it means you don't get to do my books, measure my meds, or estimate how many kids you have.
You may, however, have a bright future career as a Hollywood accountant or Presidential budget advisor.
But the answer is still wrong, and it disqualifies you from a variety of things.
Well, OK, but I don't know what you mean by "offensive assumptions" about who might fail a simple test.
I actually think that most of those YOU'RE thinking about wouldn't take the test in the first place, since generational felons are pretty much disqualified anyhow.
In other words, any disproportional impact on the people YOU (not me) thought of first would be minimized, and therefore I didn't bother to "offensively assume" anything about their ability to pass.
We are talking about Nordics here, right? (It's MY blog, so I don't have to say "N-word" - the pale-skinned bastards are just going to have to live with it.)
I haven't been thinking of felons at all. Won't discuss the "offensive" aspect of this until you tell me how you envision this fair fact-based test will be created?
...and then they came for me.
ReplyDeleteThey ain't coming for anyone. You just need to be able to demonstrate some basic grasp on our system of government if you want to vote. And if you don't have it, you simply get the free pamphlet from the Post Office, the one with all the questions AND ANSWERS in it, exactly as they are on the test and learn it.
ReplyDeleteIf you're too lazy or too incompetent to do that, you don't get to vote.
Being willfully ignorant or stupid is NOT a protected class.
Aah, this guy LZ only gets to spout off on this topic because of how good he looks.
ReplyDeleteAD, what I have never understood about you is how you can grasp the importance (and complications) of free speech, but when it comes to voting and other rights you toss the concepts out the window.
ReplyDeleteHow can you not see that we MUST freely include the least palatable, most offensive (uneducated voters) for the system to be authentic and functional? If there are tests, it is not a free system.
PS My word verification is: neakd. What word do you think that looks like to me? :-)
So, there should be NO minimum qualification?
ReplyDeleteHow about for Alzheimer's patients who think they live in 1962 and want to vote against Zod the Impaler and in favor of those little orange bits in cole-slaw?
How about a full-blown psychotic who happens to wander into the polling place because the voices told him it was world headquarters for his mother's jello mold?
How about neurologically dead patients (e.g., Terri Schiavo) who mostly communicate with the world through imaginary eye contact with their can't-face-the-facts mommies and scamming psychics? (This one, incidentally, actually plays out again and again with voters who supposedly insist on voting a straight Democratic ticket. Sad, really. They just need to unplug them and let them go.)
How about the guy with an IQ of about 50 whose daily decision-making quota is filled to overflowing by having to sort out whether to get on the bus with Mickey or Donald painted on the door?
How about 55? 60? 75? Or if you don't like IQ, how about developmental competence age? Would developed to a 15-year-old level do it? How about 12? 10? 5? Six months? Where's your cut-off there, or is there none, and does that actually sound reasonable?
How about the bus-load of ACORN-registered and driven old-folks-home people who haven't the foggiest clue where they're at or what they're doing, but know which block to check because that nice Ms. Tawnisha told them?
The necessity to meet certain minimums in order to do practically ANYTHING is simply a fact of life, and one that needs applied to (probably especially) voting.
It may not be PC to say so, but there are in fact people who are too stupid, too ignorant, too incompetent, and too lazy to be allowed to be jet pilots, or brain surgeons, or grocery clerks, or ditch diggers, or drivers, or to even just be out wandering around without supervision, even if their ignorance or failure to qualify has nothing to do with their native intelligence, but simply that they were too lazy to figure out how it works.
I don't let some half-wit slacker-dude perform surgery on me because he might be smart enough to do it, but just hadn't got around to doing the work involved in getting that pesky medical degree.
And there are CERTAINLY people who are in any of those classes who should NOT be (and are not) allowed to vote.
Granted, those are extreme cases - but so are those cases in which the mouth-breathing ignorance is self-inflicted either specifically or as a result of general apathetic laziness, and no effort to fix it is made.
Willful ignorance and flagrantly exhibited stupidity should be as much an excluding factor as profound and crippling physiological brain-damage because, willful or not, stupid is stupid.
Hmm, okay, so following your reasoning...
ReplyDeleteLet's say that anyone who wants to speak freely about how amazing Jane Fonda is ought to be put in prison.
Call a veteran a baby killer? Prison.
Because, you know, stupid is stupid.
I'm going to hold a vigil for Mumia Abu-Jamal because I believe he is a hero. Oops! Prison for me!
Yes?
Nope. Just a simple test - about the same type as given to anyone who wants to be naturalized as a citizen, with no opinion material at all.
ReplyDeleteExample: How many years are senators elected for?
Example: How many senators are there?
Example: Can a Kenyan citizen be elected President?
No opinions. Just facts that demonstrate a basic understanding of our form of government.
Explain for me how you see that as different than criminalizing unsavory speech?
ReplyDeletea. There are no criminal consequences.
ReplyDeleteb. There is no "unsavory" aspect about it. 2+2 is 4. If you answer "5" or "blue," you're just wrong - like an incorrect answer on any of the three FACT questions I gave above - wrong, not "different," or "alternate opinion."
It's not an opinion, so there's nothing unsavory about it, but the fact that you don't know the answer and can't be bothered to learn it means you don't get to do my books, measure my meds, or estimate how many kids you have.
You may, however, have a bright future career as a Hollywood accountant or Presidential budget advisor.
But the answer is still wrong, and it disqualifies you from a variety of things.
Dude.
ReplyDeleteWho decides what questions will be on the test?
Creating a test and requiring that people pass in order to vote is exactly the same as limiting speech.
I'm not going to be suckered into a rant about your ignorance and offensive assumptions about why someone might not pass a test.
Well, OK, but I don't know what you mean by "offensive assumptions" about who might fail a simple test.
ReplyDeleteI actually think that most of those YOU'RE thinking about wouldn't take the test in the first place, since generational felons are pretty much disqualified anyhow.
In other words, any disproportional impact on the people YOU (not me) thought of first would be minimized, and therefore I didn't bother to "offensively assume" anything about their ability to pass.
We are talking about Nordics here, right? (It's MY blog, so I don't have to say "N-word" - the pale-skinned bastards are just going to have to live with it.)
Who decides what questions will be on the test?
ReplyDeleteI haven't been thinking of felons at all. Won't discuss the "offensive" aspect of this until you tell me how you envision this fair fact-based test will be created?
Thanks.
:-)
It's already created. It's the naturalization test that anyone who wants to become a citizen has to pass. Some sample questions HERE.
ReplyDeleteEveryone gets a sheet with 10 questions randomly selected from the naturalization test. Score 80% or go home.
How hard is that?