4 ms·
Take away a person's right to vote and in a democracy they're no long part of society.
by comrh 11y ago
Take away a person's right to vote and in a democracy they're no long part of society.
- knodi123 11y agosociety: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. There's a lot more to american society than standing in a voting booth. I agree it's a steep price, but there's no need to exaggerate.
- baudehlo 11y agoSo you're fine with suffrage in general, or just for people who have paid their debt to society?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- eru 11y agoJust be charitable in your interpretation. Knodi123 probably wants ex-cons treated well, but doesn't believe that they are not part of society, even without voting rights. Kids have no voting rights either. Or legal aliens. Or visiting diplomats. Etc.
- baudehlo 11y agoI said nothing about being part of society (whatever that means - it's a very vague statement). I asked a specific question about suffrage.
- lotharbot 11y agoPutting a question mark after a seemingly-accusatory statement doesn't make it a question. If you were genuinely curious, "what's your opinion on voting rights for convicted criminals?" would be a better way to ask.
- baudehlo 11y agoSure, I could have asked more nicely, but when someone is seemingly ok with oppressing one part of society I would appreciate an explanation. It's surprising that (some/most?) Americans are ok with this situation, and yet understand that not giving women or minorities the vote was a huge deal.
- lotharbot 11y ago> "I would appreciate an explanation" Asking nicely makes it more likely that you will get one. People are much more likely to answer a question when it seems like you're interested in a genuine answer, than when it seems like you've already passed judgment and the question is a mere formality.
- lsaferite 11y agoShould they bow before asking nicely as well? They were not asking in a pleasant manner, but they were also not being outright rude. Not every interaction has to be sunshine and lollipops. Passive-agressive outrage at the apparent lack of concern for the disenfranchisement of a fairly large population group seems... ok in the grand scheme. No name calling, no yelling, and no 'please sir, will you answer me this' is required.
- lotharbot 11y agoI'm merely noting something learned from a lot of arguing on the internet -- if you "ask" in an accusatory way, or a passive-aggressive way, or a way that makes it seem as though you've intentionally hidden something in your question, people are less likely to give you a genuine response. People are naturally conflict-avoidant, and the way the above question was asked makes it sound like someone is itching for conflict. Even if the OP had a good answer, it can be exhausting to phrase such an answer in a way that defuses points of conflict for an already-hostile conversation partner. This advice parallels one of the Hacker News guidelines: "avoid gratuitous negativity". Asking questions in a gratuitously negative way doesn't usually make for good conversation.
- knodi123 11y agoI stated no position on the issue, so your hostile tone is unnecessary. In fact, I'm okay with suffrage for every adult of established citizenship. What I'm against is breathlessly hyperbolic exaggerations