236
"Thought Experiment"
-- Anita Cushion.
For some reason the phrase "thought experiment" makes me want to beat the shit out of the person who said it.
A thought experiment is a valid philosophical process though, it's supposed to be theoretical and for the sake of the argument.
And here, it's clearly not a thought experiment, because they'll definitely go though if they can, he's just being a racist shitbag using big words to appear smart to his electorate.
It's like this shit manager I used to work under.
who once ambushed me coming into work with "we need to change the schedule" (to some whacky schedule because he didn't want to hire more people.). he gave me all the five minutes he took to explain the schedule which and then promptly told me that if I had a problem with it, I would be removed from the account that this was coming from "the client" (contract security. For reference the security desk was five feet from the property manager... who, uh, was at her desk looking like she wanted to call his shit on things.)
told him I needed time to thing about it- which he insisted he needed to know 'immediately'. so I told him I had to go get my normal stuff rolling and called his boss on the way over informing him I'd need to find a new account.
"what are you talking about?"
"Shtibag manager just pitched this whacky ass schedule that I can't work. said if I didn't like it I would be terminated. So I'm asking for a new account effective immediately."
You'd be surprised how quickly that manager changed his tune to "Bro I was just floating the IDEA!" The thing was, this manager was a lying sack of shit and everyone under him was recording their conversations with him. Because he's been pulling this shit with everyone.
this guy was the kind of manager who measured a manager's worth by their ability to fuck over their underlings. he was also a racist, sexist shit
That girl was simultaneously of age and underage. It's everyone else's fault for observing her.
It's almost "just asking questions"
"Hypothetically, if I wasn't a flaming douchenozzle, would you buy me a beer?"
pretty sure that's not so much what he said, so much as his face.
he has a very punchable face. So soft and unlikely to break your fist.
For some reason, that would be the second-easiest beating to unsee, after nazi.
Once they realize that "having kids" does not mean you're white, and, in fact, correlates with being black or brown, he'll stop having his "thought experiment."
White people are having less kids than any other racial demographic in the United States.
Me-Well I have three sons so me and wife get 3 extra votes to vote for Harris making it a total of 5 in my house hold?
JD Vance (couch fucker)- Not like that.
This guy fucking dumber than bag of nails.
Don't worry. I'm sure phase two will involve the Originalist SCOTUS ruling that only literal landowners actually get a vote so all those people of color who rent in urban areas won't get to vote no matter how many kids they have.
And then phase three: you get three extra votes for every five slaves you own.
Was that phase three? I thought phase three was when they rule that employers get the votes of any employees who don't own their own homes.
That's a big part of it though. While yes there are benefits to oligarchs forxing births on the poor, many of these force brithers are white supremacists afraid of great replacement. They want white women to be forced to make more white babies, want parents to be able to give away child brides (this allows them to control who the white women marry), and people who are into their stuff like quiverfulls to have more rights.
Remember there was a hint of trying to tear down the decision that protected interracial marriage as well, which also aims for more controlled births.
people who are into their stuff like quiverfulls to have more rights.
And by all accounts, these are the white demographic having the most kids, even if white birth rates are lower, swinging the “white vote” by a great margin. Not to mention all of those arian eugenics tech bros…
Doubtful. Non-white children already make up a dominant majority of children in the United States (~60%), and that trend is increasing.
I’m not convinced that the people having 8 kids are demonstrating the intelligence deserving of 8 extra votes.
Yeah, maybe instead he should be arguing for people without kids to have fewer votes. Maybe, just picking a number at random here, like they should get 3/5 of a vote.
/s
The funny part is that when people jokingly suggest certain people should get 3/5 of a vote, they're overlooking an important detail that makes it even worse: slaves never got 3/5 of a vote; their owners got the extra votes.
Maybe each kid should only be worth 3/5ths a vote with all these child labor laws going out the window.
That thought experiment unleashes multiple cans of worms.
(Warning: "Quoted" bits are imaginary strawmen but I believe you will find Republicans holding these positions.)
"Life begins at conception"
Do pregnant women cast more votes? Is there going to be a pregnancy test at voting stations? Or ultrasound to check for twins?
"Parents have a bigger reason to care about future, as their kids will live in it."
— Kids aren't copies of their parents... why not decrease the voting age instead?
"No, older people know better"
The thing that chafes me more than these things is the fact that this automatically makes the votes of young people who should, by all accounts, not yet have kids, worth less than older people or people who who have kids at young age (and are probably in a worse position to take care of said kids), further disenfranchising young people from voting.
If you will be 18 during any elected official term you should be able to vote for them. This allows some kids to vote as young as 12 for senators and get to vote at 14 for president's and congress people. Then at the worst thing 18 year old seniors can vote for school admin elections
This makes sense if you start with the axiom that the state exists to serve those who are 18 and over. But it doesn't. It serves everyone. The age threshold is to ensure you have enough life experience to understand the impact of your vote.
And by that logic, old people shouldn’t get to vote anymore since “they’re not as invested in the future” either. See what happens to the GOP vote when klanma can no longer vote.
Yikes. Scary stuff.
And weird as hell
Yes, deporting one million hardcore Trumpists sounds like a good start.
Russia could use them. Let them live their glorious conservative homeland with direct flights from the Deep South.
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
236 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2150 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS