7 ms·

> I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels Why do you think this? Racism was the absolute norm in th

by nxc18 6y ago

> I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels Why do you think this? Racism was the absolute norm in the US until ~not that long ago. It’s literally written into the constitution and it took literal bloodshed to change that. And then when we did, there was massive pushback in the form of Jim Crow laws. Statistically you’d expect half of people to be dumber than average. Our (non-higher) education system in the US is nothing to be proud of and wildly inconsistent at best. Add in politician deliberately lying (e.g. republicans ignoring climate change, republicans denying covid while adjusting their portfolios to take advantage) and stupidity is clearly the norm.

tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
Where is racism "literally written" into the constitution? edit: look I know it's bad form on here to complain about being downvoted, but I was asking an honest question. Chill, people.
- 56quarters 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
- _rend 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Delegates disputed whether and how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population, as this number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people... In the US Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [italics added].[2]
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is even more damning I think. Basically saying that importation of slaves must be allowed for at least the first 19 years of the country's existence. > The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
    - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
      How is that damning? The alternative was to create the union without the south. Then slavery would have continued much longer in the south. How would it have been better for the north to refuse to compromise? The constitution brought the end of slavery. It didn’t prop it up.
      - Technically 6y ago
        I'd argue the damning point is that we still use the original constitution.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Ok - but that expired a long time ago, and the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. Is the complaint that we haven’t erased the slavery related stuff from the record? What has this got to do with people being racist now?
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. A Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Civil Rights Acts were also passed in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, and 1991. But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism.
        6y ago
- nxc18 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise I guess I am conflating the history of slavery in the US with racism.
  - mike00632 6y ago
    Racism was already codified into the American institution of slavery before the revolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States At the time of writing the constitution, slavery was expressly racist.
    - paulus_magnus2 6y ago
      Probably putting the comment too deep to be noticed but racism (or xenophobia) has always been there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Str... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strik... The Jamestown craftsmen's strike of 1619 took place in the settlement of Jamestown in the Virginia colony.[1] It was the first documented strike in North America.[2] Skilled craftsmen were sent by the Virginia Company to Jamestown to produce pitch, tar, and turpentine used for shipbuilding.[3] When the colony held its first election in 1619, many settlers were not allowed to vote on the grounds that they were not of English descent, and they went on strike.[2] Due to the importance of the skilled workers in producing valuable naval stores for the colony, company leaders bowed to labor pressure and gave full voting rights to continental workers.[1]
      - Technically 6y ago
        Not to mention that this land was occupied before the white man showed up.
- vzcx 6y ago
  I assume he is talking about the 3/5 compromise. I wonder if you could tell us, GP, which states wanted that number to be one and which wanted it to be zero?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - wilsynet 6y ago
    Let’s put this in more context. Of course slaves weren’t allowed to vote, and 3/5ths meant that the South would get more representation as recognition of the economic strength they were bringing to the union. It’s not like the Northern vs Southern states were arguing about whether a slave’s vote was worth 0, 3/5, or 1. This was about ascribing more (or less) power to slave owners.
    - jki275 6y ago
      No... the 3/5 compromise reduced the power of the south, because it kept them from getting representation for those they refused to allow to vote. The south wanted 1, the north wanted 0. The 3/5 compromise was one of the forces that eventually brought about the end of slavery. It didn’t increase the south’s representation, it decreased it.
      - jtdev 6y ago
        Oh wait... we don’t actually want to learn about history here unless it reinforces our identity politics mindset. Please remember this before posting logical, factual information.
        jki275 6y ago
        We live in a totally post fact world. Nobody wants to hear truth, they just make up whatever story they want to believe and pretend that makes it fact.
      - wilsynet 6y ago
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Aside from the place mentioned in numerous sibling comments, Article I Sec. 9. Cl. 1 (it's not phrased in racial terms, but it's literally Constitutional protection of the slave trade.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- TheGRS 6y ago
  You're welcome to look it up before making a flippant question next time.
- blackrock 6y ago
  If you seriously don’t know about this, then the parent poster’s comment about schooling, is completely accurate. > Our (non-higher) education system in the US is nothing to be proud of and wildly inconsistent at best.
mlac 6y ago
This is something I've had an issue with for a while. It's not a great move to assume that conservatives are dumb. There are plenty of brilliant people who hold conservative values. Their idea of "success" may not follow the path of others who have moved from their hometown to a coast working in IT. Or the path of those who were "enlightened" with advanced degrees where the sophisticated choice is obviously to be a democrat. It's different strokes for different folks, and there are many ways to live in the United States. A vote for Trump isn't necessarily a vote for Trump - It can be a vote for "Not Democrat." Whether or not you believe that voting "Not Democrat" is appropriate, it's a far reach to say that all, or most, of those people, are idiots with racist views. This approach discounts legitimate differences that should be open to debate and should be discussed. We can't expect the United States to last or be successful if we assume everyone in the middle of the country is an uncultured idiot who should be censored. Or assume that those who don't share the same views must be racists who just can't be reasoned with. If Democrats somehow lost control of the primary to a less ideal celebrity candidate (and this is possible: https://www.london.edu/think/why-most-elections-are-inefficient https://www.london.edu/think/why-most-elections-are-ineffici...), there would be many democrats who choose to vote for that person because it is "Not Republican." It wouldn't matter who is on the ticket as long as it is "Not Republican" because a republican choice would be dumb, racist, and unsophisticated. I grew up in the rust belt, I've lived in the most diverse city in the country (Houston, TX), and I've lived in Cambridge, MA. People are largely the same all over the country - they care about being left alone with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How they define those things differs (e.g., is a fetus "alive"?), but as long as people have those rights protected, then it's all good. But we need laws where these rights come into conflict: if someone's pursuit of happiness involves owning slaves, this is in direct conflict with another's right to life and liberty. And they are ordered in importance - life > liberty > pursuit of happiness. So obviously, slavery should be outlawed. But other things aren't that clear. Federal legislation doesn't impact everyone evenly, and those who are impacted should have a voice. Assuming every "Not Democrat" (or "Not Republican" or "Not X") voice is a racist, dumb person who should be silenced or ignored is a fast path to division and the collapse of a functioning Democracy.
- geedy 6y ago
  > It's not a great move to assume that conservatives are dumb, racist, and unsophisticated. I don't love labels, but I don't think "conservatives" are simply any of those things. This isn't an original thought, but I think they are mostly afraid of losing their community if they change their mind. Fear of disconnection is innate and biological. When my trump supporting friends say "I believe it" to somebody suggesting that the Capitol Hill rioters were antifa pretending to be trump supporters, their lack of interest in challenging their own beliefs stems from the risk incurred with disagreeing with their friends and loved ones. This effect is so strong that our brains give hits of dopamine whenever our beliefs are confirmed. We are not weird to change our minds. So no. "Conservatives" aren't dumb. Just like the rest of us, they biologically afraid of social disconnection. And all that shouting across the isle makes it harder for them to see "progressives" accepting them.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Racism was the absolute norm in the US until ~not that long ago. The racists during the time of slavery and Jim Crow made no attempt to deny their racism. The large majority of Republicans, including Trump, denounce racism. The news will find every schmuck with a confederate flag and put them on the TV, but that doesn't explain why a Republican majority Senate passed criminal justice reform and Trump signed it. > Statistically you’d expect half of people to be dumber than average. The implication being that one major political party constitutes the entire lower half of the distribution?
- wisty 6y ago
  You seem to be contributing to the discussion, but people are downvoting without actually voicing any disagreement. This seems to be common when you take the conservative "side" even if it's not really a partisan position you take, simply disagreeing with implications that the entire right are dumb racists.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > You seem to be contributing to the discussion, but people are downvoting without actually voicing any disagreement. downvotes are the voice of the unheard. > This seems to be common when you take the conservative "side" even if it's not really a partisan position you take, simply disagreeing with implications that the entire right are dumb racists. its common on both sides because its part of the human condition. However hn is one of the few places on the internet where it is even possible to achieve this, despite the downvotes.
  - burlesonK 6y ago
    I'm starting to believe down-voting has gotten more useless and should be removed. Perhaps up-voting is sufficient, but maybe not.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      Unfortunately, Facebook demonstrates that only positive feedback tends to cause problems. I do agree that downvoting (especially on political threads) is not working very well.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
refurb 6y ago
So one political party is just full of dumb racists and the other party is full of clear, rationale thinkers with no biases who only believe the truth and have never made a mistake or believed something that is untrue. That's you're theory? Really?
- yoz-y 6y ago
  That's clearly a straw man. Parent said absolutely nothing about the other party.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Are you kidding we’re talking about Trump here. Are you inferring Democrats support him?
    - yoz-y 6y ago
      No. But saying that one party is full of liars and crooks does not by any measure imply that the other is full of saints. That is a false dichotomy.

by nxc18 6y ago

tenaciousDaniel 6y ago

Where is racism "literally written" into the constitution? edit: look I know it's bad form on here to complain about being downvoted, but I was asking an honest question. Chill, people.

56quarters 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
_rend 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Delegates disputed whether and how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population, as this number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people... In the US Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [italics added].[2]
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is even more damning I think. Basically saying that importation of slaves must be allowed for at least the first 19 years of the country's existence. > The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    How is that damning? The alternative was to create the union without the south. Then slavery would have continued much longer in the south. How would it have been better for the north to refuse to compromise? The constitution brought the end of slavery. It didn’t prop it up.
    - Technically 6y ago
      I'd argue the damning point is that we still use the original constitution.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Ok - but that expired a long time ago, and the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. Is the complaint that we haven’t erased the slavery related stuff from the record? What has this got to do with people being racist now?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. A Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Civil Rights Acts were also passed in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, and 1991. But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism.
      - 6y ago
nxc18 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise I guess I am conflating the history of slavery in the US with racism.
- mike00632 6y ago
  Racism was already codified into the American institution of slavery before the revolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States At the time of writing the constitution, slavery was expressly racist.
  - paulus_magnus2 6y ago
    Probably putting the comment too deep to be noticed but racism (or xenophobia) has always been there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Str... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strik... The Jamestown craftsmen's strike of 1619 took place in the settlement of Jamestown in the Virginia colony.[1] It was the first documented strike in North America.[2] Skilled craftsmen were sent by the Virginia Company to Jamestown to produce pitch, tar, and turpentine used for shipbuilding.[3] When the colony held its first election in 1619, many settlers were not allowed to vote on the grounds that they were not of English descent, and they went on strike.[2] Due to the importance of the skilled workers in producing valuable naval stores for the colony, company leaders bowed to labor pressure and gave full voting rights to continental workers.[1]
    - Technically 6y ago
      Not to mention that this land was occupied before the white man showed up.
vzcx 6y ago
I assume he is talking about the 3/5 compromise. I wonder if you could tell us, GP, which states wanted that number to be one and which wanted it to be zero?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wilsynet 6y ago
  Let’s put this in more context. Of course slaves weren’t allowed to vote, and 3/5ths meant that the South would get more representation as recognition of the economic strength they were bringing to the union. It’s not like the Northern vs Southern states were arguing about whether a slave’s vote was worth 0, 3/5, or 1. This was about ascribing more (or less) power to slave owners.
  - jki275 6y ago
    No... the 3/5 compromise reduced the power of the south, because it kept them from getting representation for those they refused to allow to vote. The south wanted 1, the north wanted 0. The 3/5 compromise was one of the forces that eventually brought about the end of slavery. It didn’t increase the south’s representation, it decreased it.
    - jtdev 6y ago
      Oh wait... we don’t actually want to learn about history here unless it reinforces our identity politics mindset. Please remember this before posting logical, factual information.
      - jki275 6y ago
        We live in a totally post fact world. Nobody wants to hear truth, they just make up whatever story they want to believe and pretend that makes it fact.
    - wilsynet 6y ago
dragonwriter 6y ago
Aside from the place mentioned in numerous sibling comments, Article I Sec. 9. Cl. 1 (it's not phrased in racial terms, but it's literally Constitutional protection of the slave trade.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TheGRS 6y ago
You're welcome to look it up before making a flippant question next time.
blackrock 6y ago
If you seriously don’t know about this, then the parent poster’s comment about schooling, is completely accurate. > Our (non-higher) education system in the US is nothing to be proud of and wildly inconsistent at best.

mlac 6y ago

This is something I've had an issue with for a while. It's not a great move to assume that conservatives are dumb. There are plenty of brilliant people who hold conservative values. Their idea of "success" may not follow the path of others who have moved from their hometown to a coast working in IT. Or the path of those who were "enlightened" with advanced degrees where the sophisticated choice is obviously to be a democrat. It's different strokes for different folks, and there are many ways to live in the United States. A vote for Trump isn't necessarily a vote for Trump - It can be a vote for "Not Democrat." Whether or not you believe that voting "Not Democrat" is appropriate, it's a far reach to say that all, or most, of those people, are idiots with racist views. This approach discounts legitimate differences that should be open to debate and should be discussed. We can't expect the United States to last or be successful if we assume everyone in the middle of the country is an uncultured idiot who should be censored. Or assume that those who don't share the same views must be racists who just can't be reasoned with. If Democrats somehow lost control of the primary to a less ideal celebrity candidate (and this is possible: https://www.london.edu/think/why-most-elections-are-inefficient https://www.london.edu/think/why-most-elections-are-ineffici...), there would be many democrats who choose to vote for that person because it is "Not Republican." It wouldn't matter who is on the ticket as long as it is "Not Republican" because a republican choice would be dumb, racist, and unsophisticated. I grew up in the rust belt, I've lived in the most diverse city in the country (Houston, TX), and I've lived in Cambridge, MA. People are largely the same all over the country - they care about being left alone with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How they define those things differs (e.g., is a fetus "alive"?), but as long as people have those rights protected, then it's all good. But we need laws where these rights come into conflict: if someone's pursuit of happiness involves owning slaves, this is in direct conflict with another's right to life and liberty. And they are ordered in importance - life > liberty > pursuit of happiness. So obviously, slavery should be outlawed. But other things aren't that clear. Federal legislation doesn't impact everyone evenly, and those who are impacted should have a voice. Assuming every "Not Democrat" (or "Not Republican" or "Not X") voice is a racist, dumb person who should be silenced or ignored is a fast path to division and the collapse of a functioning Democracy.

geedy 6y ago
> It's not a great move to assume that conservatives are dumb, racist, and unsophisticated. I don't love labels, but I don't think "conservatives" are simply any of those things. This isn't an original thought, but I think they are mostly afraid of losing their community if they change their mind. Fear of disconnection is innate and biological. When my trump supporting friends say "I believe it" to somebody suggesting that the Capitol Hill rioters were antifa pretending to be trump supporters, their lack of interest in challenging their own beliefs stems from the risk incurred with disagreeing with their friends and loved ones. This effect is so strong that our brains give hits of dopamine whenever our beliefs are confirmed. We are not weird to change our minds. So no. "Conservatives" aren't dumb. Just like the rest of us, they biologically afraid of social disconnection. And all that shouting across the isle makes it harder for them to see "progressives" accepting them.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Racism was the absolute norm in the US until ~not that long ago. The racists during the time of slavery and Jim Crow made no attempt to deny their racism. The large majority of Republicans, including Trump, denounce racism. The news will find every schmuck with a confederate flag and put them on the TV, but that doesn't explain why a Republican majority Senate passed criminal justice reform and Trump signed it. > Statistically you’d expect half of people to be dumber than average. The implication being that one major political party constitutes the entire lower half of the distribution?

wisty 6y ago
You seem to be contributing to the discussion, but people are downvoting without actually voicing any disagreement. This seems to be common when you take the conservative "side" even if it's not really a partisan position you take, simply disagreeing with implications that the entire right are dumb racists.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > You seem to be contributing to the discussion, but people are downvoting without actually voicing any disagreement. downvotes are the voice of the unheard. > This seems to be common when you take the conservative "side" even if it's not really a partisan position you take, simply disagreeing with implications that the entire right are dumb racists. its common on both sides because its part of the human condition. However hn is one of the few places on the internet where it is even possible to achieve this, despite the downvotes.
- burlesonK 6y ago
  I'm starting to believe down-voting has gotten more useless and should be removed. Perhaps up-voting is sufficient, but maybe not.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Unfortunately, Facebook demonstrates that only positive feedback tends to cause problems. I do agree that downvoting (especially on political threads) is not working very well.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

refurb 6y ago

So one political party is just full of dumb racists and the other party is full of clear, rationale thinkers with no biases who only believe the truth and have never made a mistake or believed something that is untrue. That's you're theory? Really?

yoz-y 6y ago
That's clearly a straw man. Parent said absolutely nothing about the other party.
- refurb 6y ago
  Are you kidding we’re talking about Trump here. Are you inferring Democrats support him?
  - yoz-y 6y ago
    No. But saying that one party is full of liars and crooks does not by any measure imply that the other is full of saints. That is a false dichotomy.