She has a point though. There should be a minimum amount of reason to be allowed to vote. Some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, because if they do, this is what happens.
Or maybe we should be voting for ideas and not candidates ?
And candidates should be defending those ideas, but it shouldn’t be associated to the candidate on the bulletin
Things like: me as a poor person should be paying more taxes and Elon musk should not pay any.
I understand the sentiment, but it’s a very surface level reasoning.
The deeper issue is that as soon as you decide one group can’t vote, then the can has been opened and now it’s easier to add more groups to it.
And one day a political party gets to power that decides YOU are in a group it doesn’t like.
Like in certain countries: you CAN present your candidacy for elections…. BUT… it makes you an enemy of the president, and enemies get thrown in jail.
There should be at least a reading comprehension test for people to qualify to vote. Even better would be a media literacy and critical thinking test before election season even starts
The right to vote shouldn’t be restricted in any way. If you have legal restrictions then all it takes is bad actors expanding those categories and sorry, you just failed the critical thinking test because you think that climate change is real and life doesn’t begin at conception. Better get ready for your shift at Amazon, serf.
Media literacy and such should just be part of the education everyone gets.
This was literally used as a way in the south to prevent black people from voting. Yall failed history, maybe you shouldn’t vote. Or maybe we should remember laws that restrict rights tend to affect more than their target and will be used in bigoted ways, and so we just shouldn’t restrict people’s rights and shouldn’t give anyone the power to restrict others.
Yes the point was that the problem is the system design not the voters not being logical enough go watch star trek and follow Spock’s character development. 😂
Everyone deserves the right to have power over themselves and things that affect them personally, no one deserves the right over others. Thats the issue. We insist on using methods of organization where there are those that govern and those to be governed.
Also maybe Churchill isn’t the best person to be paraphrasing in this context considering how imperialistic and racist he was.
In case you didn’t realise, I’m not disagreeing with you. We’ve found out that limiting the vote is a bad thing, since it tends to lead to further suppression of the groups limited. I’m just pointing out they’re right to be frustrated too, since democracy isn’t perfect and has its very noticeable flaws.
Also maybe Churchill isn’t the best person to be paraphrasing in this context considering how imperialistic and racist he was.
Why does it matter who’s being paraphrased? The statement stands on its own, judge it on its own merits and not who came up with it.
I recognize democracy (particularly democracy as we have it) sucks, and I do recognize you aren’t disagreeing with me about how we can’t take rights away. I just don’t like the idea of using the flaws of democracy as an excuse to take rights away from people. That is and was the strategy of fascists, authoritarians, and bigots.
And I do believe being careful who we quote is important because “separating art from the artist” is a flawed and problematic rule. The only way you can separate “art” from the “artist” is by removing it from context, and that is a dangerous thing to do. For example if I wanted to make an anti-war point I wouldn’t use this quote,
“Sir, it is true that republics have often been cradled in war, but more often they have met with a grave in that cradle. Peace is the interest, the policy, the nature of a popular Government. War may bring benefits to a few, but privation and loss are the lot of the many. An appeal to arms should be the last resort, and only by national rights or national honor can it be justified.”
That is because this is a quote from Jefferson Davis. In the end my point is its probably not the right move to use a quote from a racist (Churchill) in response to a comment about how voter restriction is used by racists and bigots
Then they should be educated out of those ignorant views, not have their rights restricted. What are you gonna do when some wannabe fascist decides that “basic voting condition” means believing that trans people don’t exist, that climate change is a hoax, and that the ultra-wealthy shouldn’t pay any taxes actually?
Or you could juat make it so no one has the right to govern others. Then you wouldn’t have to take people’s rights away just cause they have beliefs different than yours, like you are suggesting. A problem in this world is people only seem to think about taking things away and punishing people to solve a problem, which doesn’t work.
I’ve never seen someone explain how liberal democracy and capitalism can work on a large scale with billions of people. The issue with your logic though is it doesn’t need to. Billions of people do not need to work together all at the same time and don’t need to all be included on every plan, decision, or whatever. It doesn’t need to work on a scale larger than it is able to work at because the foundation of power originates from the bottom and stays there, it is organized horizontally. Hierarchy is what isn’t scaleable as it requires deeper and deeper layers of bureaucracy the more it grows.
By human nature, a lack of authority will lead to people seizing said authority. And / or the collapse of society due to lack of social services, since nobody’s paying for them. Nobody needs to explain how liberal democracy and capitalism can reach a stable state, we’re living in it. Nobody’s ever seen a stable state of anarchy, hence the need for an explanation.
Yeah you are right, I am living in it right now and it fucking sucks and doesn’t work. I am watching it descend into fascism because that is the inevitable cycle of capitalism and liberal democracy. If you want examples of anarchism working internally you can look at the CNT-FAI of the Spanish Civil War and how they organized, or the currently existing Zapatistas. Fact of the matter is anarchism hasn’t failed because it doesn’t work as a method of organization, it hasn’t worked because they haven’t been able to defend themselves when they end up having to fight a war on multiple fronts. Which if you are going to criticize anarchism, that is where you do it. In its ability to defend itself when its being attacked on all sides and its tendency to end up in that position in the first place.
I agree that imposing a test to vote is a dangerous idea that should not be done.
But it is worth stopping to consider that America’s history is not the only way things can be done. As everyone is hopefully aware by now, America has a uniquely bad democratic system. Rather than taking the sensible approach of having a single, nonpartisan, national electoral commission, they have each state and even county run elections according to their own rules. That allowed the implementation of extremely hard tests in predominantly black areas while white areas had easy or no tests. Something a unified national system could not do.
I do not think centralizing control and decision making is the answer to that. What little decentralization America has rn is exactly what is protecting states like Maine from being completely in the pocket of fascists. The answer is further decentralization to the point people do not have power over others.
There are very good cases for decentralisation. But if you’re going to have national elections whose results affect the entire country, the rules for them should be consistent and overseen by a nonpartisan national body, not by the highly partisan state legislatures of each state.
I don’t believe we should have nation elections. I believe in horizontally organized systems, not hierarchical ones. So that seems to be the misunderstanding.
Personally, I put that kind of woo-woo in the same bucket as religion. It’s all belief in made up nonsense that is indicative of a lack of critical thinking.
What if I told you the problems only materialize when people tell other people what, and what not to believe?
Pure belief and spirituality (when you remove the need for compliance and/or judgement of others) is critical for healthy evolution of humanity through personal growth.
What if I told you the problems only materialize when people tell other people what, and what not to believe?
I disagree. The problems materialise whenever a person enters the real world and their beliefs affect how they act.
For example, a religious doctor choosing not to administer birth control, or not to perform abortions. That’s a real-world problem caused by religious people’s own beliefs impacting how they personally choose to act, and having a negative effect on society at large.
Pure belief and spirituality is critical for healthy evolution of humanity through personal growth.
Was. If you said was critical, I would agree with you. But certainly not is. We have no use for woo-woo and belief in nonsensical claims today.
the solution isn’t telling people what not to believe
Absolutely correct. However, I think far too often in society we err too far on the side of respecting religion. As some examples:
Religious institutions or individuals should not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of either religion or religious belief. A sexist teacher can’t choose to not teach women. A racist bus driver can’t say “no black people on my bus”. A religious doctor, or any doctor at a religiously-affiliated hospital, should not be allowed to refuse to provide certain procedures because of their religion.
Religions should not receive special taxation status.
Religious rituals like prayers should not be involved in any civil procedure like the opening of parliaments and city councils.
The only time religion should ever be involved in actual Monday-to-Friday schools should be as part of dispassionate academic discussion of theology, not from the perspective of evangelising.
Oh I have friends in that group too. The problem is, I wouldn’t trust any of them to do logic and reasoning. They’re great people, but they couldn’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag. Just two days ago, a group of us were on the subway. Person A commented they admired the balance of person B who was standing without any handholds. Person B started explaining how they had been training their chi, and focused their energy into their feet, since they were young.
they couldn’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag.
neither can you apparently. you’re confusing reasoning with jargon. they just speak a different dialect.
‘focus energy in your feet’ is tell you to ground yourself, loosen your knees and tighten the core. chi describes focusing your mental attention on something. any person who has snowboarded/skateboarded would understand exactly what that person is saying if they bothered to listen and put the terms into context.
do you consider ‘sound healing’ bogus? what if I told you your cells have receptors that can detect sound vibrations (your ears work right? but its more than that individual cells can too.)? which cause neural impulses which can impact large areas of the brain and body directly and indirectly.
your problem is you dont stop to listen and understand what these people are saying and you just dismiss it because they settled on using a different way of speaking and describing concepts that are nontraditional in western societies.
I had a friend who believed in that. She tried to explain to my then GF how her having a symmetrical face means she’s definitely a Libra.
Now, I loved her to bits but my ex-partner did not have a symmetrical face. Few people have. But apparently the way stars aligned on her birthday meant she must have one, so that friend insisted on it.
This isn’t reason or just a different jargon. This is woo-woo. Sitting down everyday, trying to manifest a leading role in a famous TV show but doing nothing else to get this because “manifestation will do its thing” isn’t jargon.
That friend was someone I got along with.
Because she did not try to convince me that vaccines are evil and instead I should just do a spirit cleanse. Like others tried to. This “jargon” is accompanied by fundamentally different ideas about how and why things happen and can lead to anti-scientism.
Lastly, yes, I consider sound healing bogus. The idea that frequencies alone can heal serious injuries is dumb. The difference between acknowledging that vibrations picked up by the brain can assist in a healing process and the idea that this can somehow replace any other treatment is fundamentally unreasonable.
Thank you for explaining a conversation that I had to me, based on the few words I shared here. 🙄 They also literally used Naruto as an example of how chi works, FYI.
you just dismiss it because they settled on using a different way of speaking and describing concepts that are nontraditional in western societies.
That’s funny, I was under the impression I grew up as a Chinese in an Asian society. Guess I was mistaken.
There’s something wrong with outright rejecting objective reality to believe in the fantastical. Doesn’t lend itself well to rational thinking voters, exactly does it?
You mean like running a campaign based on genocide, war hawking, and enabling corporate abuses as a democratic candidate? Yeah i was pretty baffled by that too.
Kinda depends on their exact beliefs. Cuckoos aside, a lot of non-extremist religious folks have views that are reasonably compatible with reality, or at least not mutually exclusive.
A belief in an invisible wizard in the sky that grant wishes and subject you to eternal torture if you don’t both believe in him and love him is incompatible with reality
As long as they aren’t believing every small thing that happens is due to the actions of said sky wizard, I’m not seeing the incompatibility. Also, I’m agnostic, so if you’re trying to get a raise out of me don’t bother.
No, that’s what some people think religion is. You’re describing a subset of Christianity, which is in itself a subset of religions. Just because it may apply to a large number of Americans doesn’t make it the norm everywhere.
It’s just as compatible as imagination and fairy tails as long as you don’t force your beliefs on others, or make decisions that impact others based on those beliefs.
is the implicit religious values of a nation, as expressed through public rituals, symbols (such as the national flag), and ceremonies on sacred days and at sacred places (such as monuments, battlefields, or national cemeteries).
Not respecting a flag won’t end democracy, but cutting off religion will end democracy. As you can probably guess from the article above, even most atheists are implicitly religious one way or another.
Religion is a mass delusion. Christianity is a cult. Anyone taking the Bible literally is a fool. Its fairytales, yet I’m supposed to respect grown ass adults that believe in this stuff? All ridiculous beliefs should be called out for what they are, especially when those beliefs infringe on other people.
Actual literacy test (to decide if you have the “minimum amount of reason to be allowed to vote”) used in Louisiana in 1964:
You may think restrictions on voting sound good in theory, but that’s the kind of shit you get in practice because of the kind of shit people who end up writing the rules.
She has a point though. There should be a minimum amount of reason to be allowed to vote. Some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, because if they do, this is what happens.
Or maybe we should be voting for ideas and not candidates ? And candidates should be defending those ideas, but it shouldn’t be associated to the candidate on the bulletin
Things like: me as a poor person should be paying more taxes and Elon musk should not pay any.
Me as a mexican immigrant should be deported
I should not have access to health system!
…
I understand the sentiment, but it’s a very surface level reasoning.
The deeper issue is that as soon as you decide one group can’t vote, then the can has been opened and now it’s easier to add more groups to it. And one day a political party gets to power that decides YOU are in a group it doesn’t like.
Like in certain countries: you CAN present your candidacy for elections…. BUT… it makes you an enemy of the president, and enemies get thrown in jail.
There should be at least a reading comprehension test for people to qualify to vote. Even better would be a media literacy and critical thinking test before election season even starts
The right to vote shouldn’t be restricted in any way. If you have legal restrictions then all it takes is bad actors expanding those categories and sorry, you just failed the critical thinking test because you think that climate change is real and life doesn’t begin at conception. Better get ready for your shift at Amazon, serf.
Media literacy and such should just be part of the education everyone gets.
This was literally used as a way in the south to prevent black people from voting. Yall failed history, maybe you shouldn’t vote. Or maybe we should remember laws that restrict rights tend to affect more than their target and will be used in bigoted ways, and so we just shouldn’t restrict people’s rights and shouldn’t give anyone the power to restrict others.
They’re not wrong, their intent is good. Universal democracy sucks, we just haven’t found a better replacement for it yet, to paraphrase Churchill
Incorrect, fptp voting systems suck.
FPTP systems suck more. That’s not to say there’s no issues with better voting systems.
Yes the point was that the problem is the system design not the voters not being logical enough go watch star trek and follow Spock’s character development. 😂
Everyone deserves the right to have power over themselves and things that affect them personally, no one deserves the right over others. Thats the issue. We insist on using methods of organization where there are those that govern and those to be governed.
Also maybe Churchill isn’t the best person to be paraphrasing in this context considering how imperialistic and racist he was.
In case you didn’t realise, I’m not disagreeing with you. We’ve found out that limiting the vote is a bad thing, since it tends to lead to further suppression of the groups limited. I’m just pointing out they’re right to be frustrated too, since democracy isn’t perfect and has its very noticeable flaws.
Why does it matter who’s being paraphrased? The statement stands on its own, judge it on its own merits and not who came up with it.
I recognize democracy (particularly democracy as we have it) sucks, and I do recognize you aren’t disagreeing with me about how we can’t take rights away. I just don’t like the idea of using the flaws of democracy as an excuse to take rights away from people. That is and was the strategy of fascists, authoritarians, and bigots.
And I do believe being careful who we quote is important because “separating art from the artist” is a flawed and problematic rule. The only way you can separate “art” from the “artist” is by removing it from context, and that is a dangerous thing to do. For example if I wanted to make an anti-war point I wouldn’t use this quote,
“Sir, it is true that republics have often been cradled in war, but more often they have met with a grave in that cradle. Peace is the interest, the policy, the nature of a popular Government. War may bring benefits to a few, but privation and loss are the lot of the many. An appeal to arms should be the last resort, and only by national rights or national honor can it be justified.”
That is because this is a quote from Jefferson Davis. In the end my point is its probably not the right move to use a quote from a racist (Churchill) in response to a comment about how voter restriction is used by racists and bigots
That crap was insanely convoluted. Perhaps he could still use a relatively simple test to ensure people have basic voting condition.
Like, there are people alive who believe both parties are the same.
Slippery slope. Today it’s ‘Can you read?’, tomorrow it’s ‘Please explain the history of the Republican party in great detail’.
Then they should be educated out of those ignorant views, not have their rights restricted. What are you gonna do when some wannabe fascist decides that “basic voting condition” means believing that trans people don’t exist, that climate change is a hoax, and that the ultra-wealthy shouldn’t pay any taxes actually?
Or you could juat make it so no one has the right to govern others. Then you wouldn’t have to take people’s rights away just cause they have beliefs different than yours, like you are suggesting. A problem in this world is people only seem to think about taking things away and punishing people to solve a problem, which doesn’t work.
So, anarchy? I’ve never heard a good explanation of how that would work on a widespread basis with billions of people.
I’ve never seen someone explain how liberal democracy and capitalism can work on a large scale with billions of people. The issue with your logic though is it doesn’t need to. Billions of people do not need to work together all at the same time and don’t need to all be included on every plan, decision, or whatever. It doesn’t need to work on a scale larger than it is able to work at because the foundation of power originates from the bottom and stays there, it is organized horizontally. Hierarchy is what isn’t scaleable as it requires deeper and deeper layers of bureaucracy the more it grows.
By human nature, a lack of authority will lead to people seizing said authority. And / or the collapse of society due to lack of social services, since nobody’s paying for them. Nobody needs to explain how liberal democracy and capitalism can reach a stable state, we’re living in it. Nobody’s ever seen a stable state of anarchy, hence the need for an explanation.
Yeah you are right, I am living in it right now and it fucking sucks and doesn’t work. I am watching it descend into fascism because that is the inevitable cycle of capitalism and liberal democracy. If you want examples of anarchism working internally you can look at the CNT-FAI of the Spanish Civil War and how they organized, or the currently existing Zapatistas. Fact of the matter is anarchism hasn’t failed because it doesn’t work as a method of organization, it hasn’t worked because they haven’t been able to defend themselves when they end up having to fight a war on multiple fronts. Which if you are going to criticize anarchism, that is where you do it. In its ability to defend itself when its being attacked on all sides and its tendency to end up in that position in the first place.
I agree that imposing a test to vote is a dangerous idea that should not be done.
But it is worth stopping to consider that America’s history is not the only way things can be done. As everyone is hopefully aware by now, America has a uniquely bad democratic system. Rather than taking the sensible approach of having a single, nonpartisan, national electoral commission, they have each state and even county run elections according to their own rules. That allowed the implementation of extremely hard tests in predominantly black areas while white areas had easy or no tests. Something a unified national system could not do.
I do not think centralizing control and decision making is the answer to that. What little decentralization America has rn is exactly what is protecting states like Maine from being completely in the pocket of fascists. The answer is further decentralization to the point people do not have power over others.
There are very good cases for decentralisation. But if you’re going to have national elections whose results affect the entire country, the rules for them should be consistent and overseen by a nonpartisan national body, not by the highly partisan state legislatures of each state.
I don’t believe we should have nation elections. I believe in horizontally organized systems, not hierarchical ones. So that seems to be the misunderstanding.
And maybe you have to be a landowner too
i dont think you really get the whole “democracy” thing
I don’t think you really understand my comment.
Giving your right to vote into the hands of anybody else opens up the potential for your right to vote to be taken away.
Looking at past dictators, intellectuals are the ones that are usually targeted first as well.
Honestly, I don’t think you understand your comment. 🙄
A simple religious test could work - Are you religious: Y/N?
Nothing’s wrong with religion. I don’t believe that Buddhists automatically make an objectively worse choice than atheists.
Crystal healers, OTOH…
Personally, I put that kind of woo-woo in the same bucket as religion. It’s all belief in made up nonsense that is indicative of a lack of critical thinking.
What if I told you the problems only materialize when people tell other people what, and what not to believe?
Pure belief and spirituality (when you remove the need for compliance and/or judgement of others) is critical for healthy evolution of humanity through personal growth.
I disagree. The problems materialise whenever a person enters the real world and their beliefs affect how they act.
For example, a religious doctor choosing not to administer birth control, or not to perform abortions. That’s a real-world problem caused by religious people’s own beliefs impacting how they personally choose to act, and having a negative effect on society at large.
Was. If you said was critical, I would agree with you. But certainly not is. We have no use for woo-woo and belief in nonsensical claims today.
Very valid point.
Though I’m pretty sure the solution isn’t telling people what not to believe.
Absolutely correct. However, I think far too often in society we err too far on the side of respecting religion. As some examples:
Etc.
Clutches crystals really firmly and sends evil thoughts your way
You do have a point.
How is a prayer to a bodhisattva for good health not the same as sleeping next to a mineral for good health?
Christianity is not the same thing as religion.
You may have missed the edit I did. I made it more clear that I was using Buddhism as the counter-example.
There are more counter-examples (paganism is another) than examples.
Fun fact: a lot of the crystal healers i interact with are solid people.
Nutty sure but most of them are all about emotional wellness and support and very few are okay with trump or republicans.
It always amuses me when the people who think they’re rational and shit on the mystic groups miss out on wonderful friends and allies.
Kind of like the 2019 campaign when everone shit on Marianne Williamson.
Oh I have friends in that group too. The problem is, I wouldn’t trust any of them to do logic and reasoning. They’re great people, but they couldn’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag. Just two days ago, a group of us were on the subway. Person A commented they admired the balance of person B who was standing without any handholds. Person B started explaining how they had been training their chi, and focused their energy into their feet, since they were young.
neither can you apparently. you’re confusing reasoning with jargon. they just speak a different dialect.
‘focus energy in your feet’ is tell you to ground yourself, loosen your knees and tighten the core. chi describes focusing your mental attention on something. any person who has snowboarded/skateboarded would understand exactly what that person is saying if they bothered to listen and put the terms into context.
do you consider ‘sound healing’ bogus? what if I told you your cells have receptors that can detect sound vibrations (your ears work right? but its more than that individual cells can too.)? which cause neural impulses which can impact large areas of the brain and body directly and indirectly.
your problem is you dont stop to listen and understand what these people are saying and you just dismiss it because they settled on using a different way of speaking and describing concepts that are nontraditional in western societies.
I had a friend who believed in that. She tried to explain to my then GF how her having a symmetrical face means she’s definitely a Libra.
Now, I loved her to bits but my ex-partner did not have a symmetrical face. Few people have. But apparently the way stars aligned on her birthday meant she must have one, so that friend insisted on it.
This isn’t reason or just a different jargon. This is woo-woo. Sitting down everyday, trying to manifest a leading role in a famous TV show but doing nothing else to get this because “manifestation will do its thing” isn’t jargon.
That friend was someone I got along with. Because she did not try to convince me that vaccines are evil and instead I should just do a spirit cleanse. Like others tried to. This “jargon” is accompanied by fundamentally different ideas about how and why things happen and can lead to anti-scientism.
Lastly, yes, I consider sound healing bogus. The idea that frequencies alone can heal serious injuries is dumb. The difference between acknowledging that vibrations picked up by the brain can assist in a healing process and the idea that this can somehow replace any other treatment is fundamentally unreasonable.
Thank you for explaining a conversation that I had to me, based on the few words I shared here. 🙄 They also literally used Naruto as an example of how chi works, FYI.
That’s funny, I was under the impression I grew up as a Chinese in an Asian society. Guess I was mistaken.
And the problem with using a shared cultural reference is? 😂
Fucker we use water pipes to explain current and other concepts in high energy physics.
You need to get over yourself.
There’s something wrong with outright rejecting objective reality to believe in the fantastical. Doesn’t lend itself well to rational thinking voters, exactly does it?
You mean like running a campaign based on genocide, war hawking, and enabling corporate abuses as a democratic candidate? Yeah i was pretty baffled by that too.
Kinda depends on their exact beliefs. Cuckoos aside, a lot of non-extremist religious folks have views that are reasonably compatible with reality, or at least not mutually exclusive.
A belief in an invisible wizard in the sky that grant wishes and subject you to eternal torture if you don’t both believe in him and love him is incompatible with reality
As long as they aren’t believing every small thing that happens is due to the actions of said sky wizard, I’m not seeing the incompatibility. Also, I’m agnostic, so if you’re trying to get a raise out of me don’t bother.
That’s what religion is.
As for trying to get a rise out of you, your agnostic. How can I offend you when you don’t even know what you believe?
No, that’s what some people think religion is. You’re describing a subset of Christianity, which is in itself a subset of religions. Just because it may apply to a large number of Americans doesn’t make it the norm everywhere.
It’s just as compatible as imagination and fairy tails as long as you don’t force your beliefs on others, or make decisions that impact others based on those beliefs.
Imagination and fairytales are recognized as not being real. The same can’t be said for religion.
Welp.
Good riddance.
To democracy?
Not respecting a flag won’t end democracy.
You’re speaking to an anarchist, I don’t value flags, states, or any other nationalistic bullshit.
Not respecting a flag won’t end democracy, but cutting off religion will end democracy. As you can probably guess from the article above, even most atheists are implicitly religious one way or another.
Absolutelythefucknot
Uh… Nationality? Idelogy? Political party? Hell, sports teams? This shit runs deep.
Exactly: voting should only be done by proper God-fearing Protestant Christians! Disenfranchise those heathen atheists! \S
There are two things in the world I can’t stand: people who are intolerant of other people’s cultures… and
the Dutchsmug atheists.Religion is a mass delusion. Christianity is a cult. Anyone taking the Bible literally is a fool. Its fairytales, yet I’m supposed to respect grown ass adults that believe in this stuff? All ridiculous beliefs should be called out for what they are, especially when those beliefs infringe on other people.
Smug? No; to the point and tired of humouring this nonsense any longer.
Actual literacy test (to decide if you have the “minimum amount of reason to be allowed to vote”) used in Louisiana in 1964:
You may think restrictions on voting sound good in theory, but that’s the kind of shit you get in practice because of the kind of shit people who end up writing the rules.