It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time for a new frictional compromise?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat


" Does defunding the police really make that big of an impact toward equalizing power among the races? "

No , it does not . What it Really does though is Put a lot of Afro American Cops out of a Job . Thanks Liberals , Another Great Bad Idea............




posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

There's lot of underrepresented groups along many varied lines other than skin color or ethnicity. How about the disabled, do they get a super vote?

Maybe we should divide votes based on left handers vs. right handers.

Maybe by height. The taller you are from the average the more your vote matters, and the shorter you are from the average the more your vote matters.

etc

Why does a skin color or ethnicity deserve special representation, and what ignorant # honestly thinks people with white skin are voting as a group and not as individuals to make this necessary in the first place?



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DanDanDat

Why are you only worried about the black demographic, and which black demographic at that? Are you not worried about Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans? Should we create "percentages" to weight their votes too?

And let's get back to the black demographic are we only talking about those descended from slaves or those who have immigrated from other countries since? Will there be different weights for those who went all the way back, those who moved in since Jim Crow, and those who came in after all that nonsense was done away with?



Yes, this idea would apply to all races, I thought I made that clear in My Op. But if I did not make it clear enough I do apologize.



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DanDanDat

There's lot of underrepresented groups along many varied lines other than skin color or ethnicity. How about the disabled, do they get a super vote?

Maybe we should divide votes based on left handers vs. right handers.

Maybe by height. The taller you are from the average the more your vote matters, and the shorter you are from the average the more your vote matters.


I would agree; there are many demographics besides races based ones where this idea could apply. The Disabled community is a good example.



etc

Why does a skin color or ethnicity deserve special representation, and what ignorant # honestly thinks people with white skin are voting as a group and not as individuals to make this necessary in the first place?


People with white skin vote for and the on issues that effect them the most. Thats human nature.

Recent days, and not so recent ones, make it very clear that people who belong to different racial demographics (and yes other non races based demographics) experience life differently; have different concerns and different needs. That by default means they vote along the same lines as people most like them and often in different ways to those more different then they are.



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

The differences between all of us are infinite. The idea of making voting based off people who are furthest from the average getting the most voting power as individuals is absurd. There's no way to make this system work even come close to the thing you're shooting for, fair.



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DanDanDat

To reach true equality, a person is treated the same no matter what.

If the rule says that one person gets one vote, then that's the way it needs to be, even if there are less of one type of person than another type.

The reason why we have representative republic and not true democracy is because it does protect minority groups in the end.

Look at the end of the last election - the left loves to rub it in that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, or the popular democratic vote, but by the rules of representative republic (the Electoral College) in which she had to win the majority of the elections in the states, she lost.

It doesn't matter that some states have a disproportionate amount of the population in their borders, and that she won those states. Those states are still more heavily represented in the final vote tally of the EC, but she ignored too many of the rest of the state for those heavily populated ones to matter.

In the same way, a representative republic represents those minority groups. Heavily conservative districts more often than not end up sending very conservative voices to the House to speak for them, and you aren't seeing people who don't represent African Americans coming out of heavily urban districts. Who do you think elects people like Sheila Jackson-Lee or Ilhan Omer or Emmanuel Cleaver? They are elected by the people they represent. In a true democracy, those people would not be in Congress because, as you say, the odds are they wouldn't win in a wide vote because apparently white folks are racist (nevermind people like Barack Obama and Tim Scott).

Those people certainly have a large voice in the House. Large enough they have their own caucus.

When it comes to the Senate, you are looking at representatives of the States as a whole, not the people themselves. This is traditionally why the States used to appoint them rather than elect them.

Do you need to kneecap voting? And what purpose would it serve? Do you want this country to descend to the levels that South Africa has? And we have less reason to do so.



ketsuko this is a well written argument; thank you for replying.

How do you feel about the current Electoral College system that puts into question the idea "one person gets one vote". People who live in certain areas of the country already have larger voting power than people living in other parts of the country.

Why is this disproportionate voting power ok for location but not race?

And you are correct even under the Electoral College and house seats larger populated states still have larger representation.

If we where to create an Electoral College type system for racial demographics doesn't mean we would need to give each race the same exact voting power. But like the Electoral College scew the numbers just enough that the disparity isn't as large.

A compromise on the extent numbers would need to be reached. Clearly the Majority doesn't have to agree to a completely level field; but maybe they would agree to a more level field.



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DanDanDat

The differences between all of us are infinite. The idea of making voting based off people who are furthest from the average getting the most voting power as individuals is absurd. There's no way to make this system work even come close to the thing you're shooting for, fair.


But it wouldn't be about giving people who are furthest from the averag the most voting power.

Just more voting power than they currently have.

The majority would still hold the most voting power; just less than they currently have.

The exact numbers would have to be compromised on; just like our founding fathers compromised on population size per state ... the larger populated states did not loose their majority; but they did recognize that they held to much power to make a union viable and agreed to less power than their size would have otherwise dictated.
edit on 20-6-2020 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

There's no good way to do what you want that isn't giving individuals extra voting power for arbitrary prejudiced reasons.



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DanDanDat

There's no good way to do what you want that isn't giving individuals extra voting power for arbitrary prejudiced reasons.


Yes it would be accomplished through "arbitrary prejudiced reasons"; that's a given.

Just like the Electoral College is based on arbitrary geographic reasons.

But the outcome would be the same; otherwise marginalized groups would enjoy more power to accomplish the things they feel are important while the majority held on to the majority of power. Compromise.



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

How do you define marginalized fairly without being a racist asshat? Defining people with black skin or white skin as separate demographics is racist. It's the kind of thought that leads towards the silly idea the Black skinned conservatives aren't truly black.

It's seriously a screwed up way to think. I've had black friends, and even married a black woman and the first person I dated was black. At no point did I consider them a different demographic, many of my black friends and I agreed with each other, and enjoyed a lot of the same things. The only thing that made us a different demographic are idiots insisting we are. One of my best friends when I was younger had black skin and we shared almost everything.

That you're insisting that these people I shared so much with, are somehow different because they have black skin, and need some kind of extra voting power because of it I find downright insulting. Their skin color made no difference in our relationships or the ideas, beliefs or joys we shared. That you think their skin color is so significant that it requires such a separation from myself is not only divisive, it's just plain wrong.

You are a divider, it's ideas like yours that do their best to make sure we'll never be one people. Just stop.


edit on 6/20/2020 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DanDanDat

How do you define marginalized fairly without being a racist asshat? Defining people with black skin or white skin as separate demographics is racist. It's the kind of thought that leads towards the silly idea the Black skinned conservatives aren't truly black.

It's seriously a screwed up way to think. I've had black friends, and even married a black woman and the first person I dated was black. At no point did I consider them a different demographic, many of my black friends and I agreed with each other, and enjoyed a lot of the same things. The only thing that made us a different demographic are idiots insisting we are. One of my best friends when I was younger had black skin and we shared almost everything.

That you're insisting that these people I shared so much with, are somehow different because they have black skin, and need some kind of extra voting power because of it I find downright insulting. Their skin color made no difference in our relationships or the ideas, beliefs or joys we shared. That you think their skin color is so significant that it requires such a separation from myself is not only divisive, it's just plain wrong.

You are a divider, it's ideas like yours that do their best to make sure we'll never be one people. Just stop.



You contradict yourself; you make the argument that we are already one people and that we all share the exact same concerns in life.

But than say that ideas like mine make sure we'll never be one people.

Which is it? Are we already one people or not?
edit on 20-6-2020 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

The two thoughts are not contradictory. A person can both believe we are all one people biologically while recognizing efforts by others to keep us divided from each other along sociological lines.

My desire is to destroy the efforts of people like yourself to strengthen these sociological divisions so that we can properly become what we are biologically, a single people.

I refuse to accept your division, and will deny anyone who insists I should accept it, as that's the only real way to end racism, is to tell people who insist on pushing race to shut the # up and stop pushing and insisting on the importance of that divisive #. Black, white, or #ing blue, we are one people and I will stand against anyone trying to segregate us. The only way to end race is to stop segregating along racial lines, period, end of story, full stop.
edit on 6/20/2020 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DanDanDat

The two thoughts are not contradictory. A person can both believe we are all one people biologically while recognizing efforts by others to keep us divided from each other along sociological lines.

My desire is to destroy the efforts of people like yourself to strengthen these sociological divisions so that we can properly become what we are biologically, a single people.

I refuse to accept your division, and will deny anyone who insists I should accept it, as that's the only real way to end racism, is to tell people who insist on pushing race to shut the # up and stop pushing and insisting on the importance of that divisive #. Black, white, or #ing blue, we are one people and I will stand against anyone trying to segregate us. The only way to end race is to stop segregating along racial lines, period, end of story, full stop.


I see; well I do apologize if you felt pushed or threatened by my OP. It certainly was not my intention to push you in any direction; I'll try to be more mindful of your feelings in the future.



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

My feelings are irrelevant in comparison to the amount of damage to healing the divide implementing your idea would cause.

Last thing we need is more segregation.

So sick of people trying to fix racism with more racism.
edit on 6/20/2020 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DanDanDat

My feelings are irrelevant in comparison to the amount of damage to healing the divide implementing your idea would cause.

Last thing we need is more segregation.


I would agree; the last thing we need is more segregation. I'm just not sure that pretending a problem doesn't exist and shouting down discussions on the matter is a viable path forward.



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat



This video is why you don't.

So, I need to stop identifying myself as me, and instead reduce myself to: white, woman, disabled?

Is that how I get you? I, me, the unique person I am no longer matter, the only way my vote has any value at all is if I can find identity collectives to belong to. The unique person I am has zero value, and my vote as that person ceases to exist.

We already see this, BTW. Why do you think the left absolutely savages anyone belonging to any of their so-called privilege groups that dares to publicly admit they don't agree with the identity collective party line?

And getting back to the video ... Do you see? Push and push and push ... most people have been more than tolerant of this, but patience only goes so far. Sooner or later, all the tolerance snaps. Sometimes, people tend to forget that tolerance doesn't mean approval.

edit on 20-6-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2020 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

A problem does exists. Solutions like yours is part of the problem. It's not the only part, but it is part of it.



posted on Jun, 21 2020 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DanDanDat

A problem does exists. Solutions like yours is part of the problem. It's not the only part, but it is part of it.



WE are ALL Part of the Problem , and ONLY Some of US Clearly See the Solution , and it is NOT What YOU Think ....




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join