3 ms·

I think you're being a bit naive. The test was designed to disenfranchise people, it was literally designed by people who didn't want black people to vote. You

I think you're being a bit naive. The test was designed to disenfranchise people, it was literally designed by people who didn't want black people to vote. You can't say "Well I guess it could've been less ambiguous" the whole point was to be ambiguous to give a pretext to disqualify black people from voting. You can get 0 answers wrong and there would still be a way of throwing away your vote. Take question 11 - cross out the number necessary when making the number below 1 million. Do you cross out the excess 000s or do you cross out 1,000,000. Or do you cross out enough numbers to make the number below 1 million? The answer is it doesn't matter because (a) by giving you a multiple viable chance they've already managed to disenfranchise a percentage of the people they're targetting, and (b) whatever you do they can just claim the opposite interpretation and refuse you a right to vote. There wasn't some high minded idealism behind this test. It was a tool for the people administering the election to select who they wanted to allow to vote. Any test you design will serve the same purpose, albeit some more efficiently than others.

marcusverus 2y ago
[flagged]
- rolandog 2y ago
  > The fact that literacy and competency testing were misused in the past is no excuse to allow illiterates and incompetents to determine the course of our civilization. I'm glad we both agree that more money should abundantly be allotted to education budgets, and making higher quality education more accessible — without discrimination — to the masses. I do view the literacy and competency tests as a tool that should be pointing in the other direction: at all elected and non-elected officials; exhibit A, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology of 2014 [0] (relevant timestamp: 02:47). [0]: https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?t=167 https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?t=167
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  How would you answer question 20?
- consteval 2y ago
  As opposed to allowing people who are naive enough to believe such tests will be deployed equitably to vote. Perhaps, if you believe in the concept of restricting voting, you can feel the inspiration to begin with yourself. Somehow though, I imagine you don't like that idea. Which makes me wonder why you would then even believe in disenfranchisement in the first place.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  > no excuse to allow illiterates and incompetents to determine the course of our civilization Just a random question: what are your thoughts on eugenics?

marcusverus 2y ago

[flagged]

rolandog 2y ago
> The fact that literacy and competency testing were misused in the past is no excuse to allow illiterates and incompetents to determine the course of our civilization. I'm glad we both agree that more money should abundantly be allotted to education budgets, and making higher quality education more accessible — without discrimination — to the masses. I do view the literacy and competency tests as a tool that should be pointing in the other direction: at all elected and non-elected officials; exhibit A, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology of 2014 [0] (relevant timestamp: 02:47). [0]: https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?t=167 https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?t=167
ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
How would you answer question 20?
consteval 2y ago
As opposed to allowing people who are naive enough to believe such tests will be deployed equitably to vote. Perhaps, if you believe in the concept of restricting voting, you can feel the inspiration to begin with yourself. Somehow though, I imagine you don't like that idea. Which makes me wonder why you would then even believe in disenfranchisement in the first place.
DrillShopper 2y ago
> no excuse to allow illiterates and incompetents to determine the course of our civilization Just a random question: what are your thoughts on eugenics?