Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


US Local politics and policy thread.

   
You are correct that as written it is intended to target people who help plan and support the riot but do not actually riot themselves. The issue is that the practical application of it can stray from that intent. There is hype in the article, of course, but given how laws have been misapplied in the past, I think it could use reworking at the minimum. It reduces the burden of proof on the state in order to get a conviction. That always deserves extra scrutiny. Look at Berkley. There was clearly a separate group who came prepared to riot and used the existing protest as cover. As the scene decended into chaos who was a perpetrator and an innocent bystander became blurry. Further some people who were a part of the protest joined the riot when most did the smart thing and retreated. Under existing law the rioters caught actually causing property damage can be charged, but this law could see the people who were there shouting but not participating charged as well. The fear is that the people who planned the originally peaceful protest might also be charged with conspiracy to riot if they can be linked with anyone arrested for committing the riot itself. Im not a lawyer either, but my default state is to distrust authority

It further opens up the possibility of federal informants infiltrating a movement, plotting something violence, and being used as the justification for arresting the entire group.

See: What the Feds did in the 60's. Heck, even the Bundies had a bunch of informants with them at the wild life reserve, iirc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
If you read the passage in context, you may note that Griffin was outlining the scope of the problem. He then goes on to describe his take on it. Matters of history are subject to revision as new information comes to light, but we make the best we can of what we have currently while keeping an open mind.

Now, if you look under that paragraph, you will notice the next section is The New Consensus Guiding the Selection of Texts, which establishes what the consensus at the time of writing was.

Would you care to tell me your understanding of what Griffin's New Consensus is? I'll give you a hint: one of the following sections is titled The Inclusion of Nazism.

Now, we must keep an open mind, so if you have any actual evidence that the majority of historians consider the Nazis to not be fascists, you are free to present it.
He's saying *his definition*, a social scientists definition includes nazism, even though other definitions do not, specifically historical references. Again, if you read the book, it talks about the differences between social scientists or philosophers viewpoints on what fascism is, and not historical.

The consensus he's talking about, in the book, is for political scientists specifically. He goes on to say "Cumulatively, they serve to underline the need for any scholarly 'nomethic' interest in it's generic features on the art of political scientists to be balanced and tempered by an intense ideographic concern with the singularity of individual variants that is the specialty of historians." What are those differences? Well...


""For those attached to their traditional assumptions about fascism, perhaps the most contentious premise underlying the new consensus is that the item is to be defined ideologically. It's proponents claim, or merely take for granted, like any other genus of ideology (e.g. liberalism, ecologism, anarchism) fascism can be treated as having a definitional or "ineliminable core" of components that remains intact even when the adjacent or peripheral properties seemingly welded to it in a particular permutation or historical phase of it's development are replaced by others."- When you look under the "ideological definition" part, you'll see that he's trying to treat fascism, within the "new consensus", as a definition for a broader ideological term like socialism or capitalism, or anarchism etc. rather than in it's historical reference. He specifically delineates between the two concepts and says that, except for historians, there is a consensus on it from an ideological perspective. Later down he talks about the inclusion of nazism, but this is for the ideological definition of fascism in the view of political science, rather than history. It seeks to define the ideology in broader contexts, rather than as an actual specific time period. Someone can be a fascist in this context even if they do not identify themselves as a fascist. Sort of like how saying someone can be a nazi, even if they weren't ever a part of the actual nazi party, or a white supremacist even if they aren't a member of the KKK. The term nazi is used synonymously to refer to both those within the ideological camp and actually a part of the group, just like how fascist is being used to mean two things, here. It's a slight, but important distinction. In this way fascism can have two meanings, one that includes nazism, and one that doesn't.


"The application of the new consensus also explains the inclusion of Nazism as a variant of generic fascism, even though some major scholars are resistant to attempt to place it in any generic category other than 'totalitarian'." The new consensus being the ideological belief system, the ideological definition of fascism as a broader philosophical concept by political scientists, rather than it's definition from a historical perspective. Again, it's important to know to separate these two ideologies from each other rather than take every single statement in the book as a statement for every definition of fascism as a whole. In his own words:

"Readers should be conscious of the tentative nature of the taxonomic categories it proposes". In other words, it's important to understand what the new consensus is defined as being, which is an ideological view of fascism, treating fascism as an ideology rather than an actual group (where as the KKK is a group, but you wouldn't say someone has a "KKK" mentality, but is a white supremacist). Above this statement so you can find the context, he refers to three separate volumes of information he draws from to form his different definitions, Volume I being post WW1 observations, Volume II being social dynamics, and volume III being information from a historical perspective(pages 2-3). In this way the new consensus he's referring to is only in regards to a political scientists view on the subject, rather than it as a whole, and he makes this fairly clear. This is about as much as I'm willing to go in to something so pedantic in this post, and I mean that in the truest sense that semantics is a truly pointless concept, as a rose by any other name is still as thorny; or smells as sweet, if you prefer that. But my mom's an English teacher so I know all about the taxonomic roots of words, and it's been a topic of discussion for me for quite some time. I also love boring things. If you want to go in to even more discussion we can but know it's probably not worth the effort or time, and would be off-topic so we should take it to PM's. We'd also have to scrounge up some more e-books.



Obviously, this is what the experts have to say on the issue and is of course derived heuristically. That might not be convincing enough for you, but since you did cite the book as evidence I'm presuming you'd stand by what was said within it as evidence for the information being right or wrong.

Quote:
I now formally invoke the forum rules and ask you to retract your claim that most historians do not consider the Nazis fascists as you have constantly failed to present evidence.

In addition, you have engaged in a personal attack on me. I formally invoke the forum rules against personal attacks, and request that you withdraw the remark.
It wasn't a personal attack at all. And this only continues to reinforce my point. My proof is the expert's statements on the position to describe a general trend and belief, an example of which is referenced in your own book. What you need to realize is that parts of the book talking about one thing, don't talk about everything in his book. So while in the book it may say that "this definition includes this!", that doesn't mean all definitions include it. It's important to remember context, to understand how the statements applies to the topic it regards, rather than to think that everything in the book is about the book as a whole.

To simplify all of this, there are two main definitions of fascism. One is fascism as a group, and the other is fascism as an ideology. Just like how a person can be a feminist, but not actively participle in actual feminist groups. The ideological definition of the new consensus is primarily what he is talking about in his book, but he does make reference to the historical view which is that of the group itself. You don't have to be a card-carrying member of the KKK to share the same viewpoint, even if you aren't actually a member. But where as people don't say you have a "KKK ideology", they do say you have a "fascist-like ideology", so that's why a distinction is needed.

""In doing so, it (the new consensus) treats fascism no differently than other generic ideologies such as communism, conversavatism, and feminism, all of which are routinely defined by the social sciences in terms of the goals they set out to achieve rather than in terms of their negations or the harm they have caused historically in attempting to realize their ideals. " Page 5, under "Ideological definition of fascism".

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonBarbarian View Post
He's saying *his definition*, a social scientists definition includes nazism, even though other definitions do not, specifically historical references.
If we are talking about the Roger Griffin I think we are, he is a professor of modern history and political theory at Oxford. I think that may qualify him as a historian, rather than a social scientist?

(Several the people I mentioned who consider Nazism to be Fascism turned out to be historians, upon further inspection. Robert Paxton was a historian. Stanley Payne was a historian.)

Quote:
Again, if you read the book, it talks about the differences between social scientists or philosophers viewpoints on what fascism is, and not historical.The consensus he's talking about, in the book, is for political scientists specifically. He goes on to say "Cumulatively, they serve to underline the need for any scholarly 'nomethic' interest in it's generic features on the art of political scientists to be balanced and tempered by an intense ideographic concern with the singularity of individual variants that is the specialty of historians." What are those differences? Well...

""For those attached to their traditional assumptions about fascism, perhaps the most contentious premise underlying the new consensus is that the item is to be defined ideologically. It's proponents claim, or merely take for granted, like any other genus of ideology (e.g. liberalism, ecologism, anarchism) fascism can be treated as having a definitional or "ineliminable core" of components that remains intact even when the adjacent or peripheral properties seemingly welded to it in a particular permutation or historical phase of it's development are replaced by others."- When you look under the "ideological definition" part, you'll see that he's trying to treat fascism, within the "new consensus", as a definition for a broader ideological term like socialism or capitalism, or anarchism etc. rather than in it's historical reference. He specifically delineates between the two concepts and says that, except for historians, there is a consensus on it from an ideological perspective.
To be clear: are you saying that there is not a consensus by historians on what Fascism is, from an ideological perspective? And thus, historians only define fascism narrowly?

If so, what is the historian's definition of fascism?

Quote:
Later down he talks about the inclusion of nazism, but this is for the ideological definition of fascism in the view of political science, rather than history. It seeks to define the ideology in broader contexts, rather than as an actual specific time period. Someone can be a fascist in this context even if they do not identify themselves as a fascist. Sort of like how saying someone can be a nazi, even if they weren't ever a part of the actual nazi party, or a white supremacist even if they aren't a member of the KKK. The term nazi is used synonymously to refer to both those within the ideological camp and actually a part of the group, just like how fascist is being used to mean two things, here. It's a slight, but important distinction. In this way fascism can have two meanings, one that includes nazism, and one that doesn't.
Do you mean it is like the term "Republican", in that both Republcian party members and Republican voters can be referred to as "Republican", even though only one of those would have the paperwork to back it up?

Quote:
"The application of the new consensus also explains the inclusion of Nazism as a variant of generic fascism, even though some major scholars are resistant to attempt to place it in any generic category other than 'totalitarian'." The new consensus being the ideological belief system, the ideological definition of fascism as a broader philosophical concept by political scientists, rather than it's definition from a historical perspective. Again, it's important to know to separate these two ideologies from each other rather than take every single statement in the book as a statement for every definition of fascism as a whole. In his own words:

"Readers should be conscious of the tentative nature of the taxonomic categories it proposes". In other words, it's important to understand what the new consensus is defined as being, which is an ideological view of fascism, treating fascism as an ideology rather than an actual group (where as the KKK is a group, but you wouldn't say someone has a "KKK" mentality, but is a white supremacist). Above this statement so you can find the context, he refers to three separate volumes of information he draws from to form his different definitions, Volume I being post WW1 observations, Volume II being social dynamics, and volume III being information from a historical perspective(pages 2-3). In this way the new consensus he's referring to is only in regards to a political scientists view on the subject, rather than it as a whole, and he makes this fairly clear. This is about as much as I'm willing to go in to something so pedantic in this post, and I mean that in the truest sense that semantics is a truly pointless concept, as a rose by any other name is still as thorny; or smells as sweet, if you prefer that. But my mom's an English teacher so I know all about the taxonomic roots of words, and it's been a topic of discussion for me for quite some time. I also love boring things. If you want to go in to even more discussion we can but know it's probably not worth the effort or time, and would be off-topic so we should take it to PM's. We'd also have to scrounge up some more e-books.

Obviously, this is what the experts have to say on the issue and is of course derived heuristically. That might not be convincing enough for you, but since you did cite the book as evidence I'm presuming you'd stand by what was said within it as evidence for the information being right or wrong.
Pardon?

You're the one who brought up that book.

Does this sound familiar?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonBarbarian View Post
I don't really care to try and push this point because it's not really relevant to the topic at hand and furthermore the evidence you would find substantial to prove it is not going to be the same as the evidence I find substantial to prove it.

But, I believe I already linked to you two books, "Reappraisals of Fascism" and "Who were the Fascists: Social Roots of European Fascism", but even the book you provided which there is an E-Book copy of says, particularly through pages 23-26, about the differences in definition by historian and social scientists, although it's scattered throughout the book. For his purposes he claims to be defining it as a way to describe it as a broader social movement rather than a historical definition of the actual organizations. He doesn't claim to refute the historical views either, he merely doesn't group it in with anglophone social scientists.
You have done well to prove that there is a political science definition and a historical definition, which differ.

How does this support your original point, which, if you will remember, was over whether the majority of historians consider Nazis to be Fascists, not whether there is a difference between the political scientists and historians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonBarbarian View Post
The thing is, Nazi ideology is very specific. While white supremacy is not, not all white supremacists, are in fact, nazis. And in fact, Nazis aren't even fascists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonBarbarian View Post
The Italians were fascist, while the Germans were Nazis. And the Russians were communist, and the Eastern Europeans were socialist. And Pinochet was capitalist. These are all evil dictatorial regimes but, they were not all a part of the same ideology. Fascism actually refers to a very specific form of government. "Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."

Now, national socialism believed that Atlanteans were the superior Aryan race and believed in wiping out or enslaving all the non-Aryans that didn't follow their core beliefs. Not all fascists believe in racial supremacy, let alone specifically of the German and Aryan peoples. In fact few do. But all National socialists do, or Nazis as many abbreviate. "Pseudo-scientific racism theories were central to Nazism. The Nazis propagated the idea of a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft). Their aim was to unite "racially desirable" Germans as national comrades, while excluding those deemed either to be political dissidents, physically or intellectually inferior, or of a foreign race (Fremdvölkische).The Nazis sought to improve the stock of the Germanic people through racial purity and eugenics, broad social welfare programs, and a collective subordination of individual rights, which could be sacrificed for the good of the state and the "Aryan master race" [2]

Now obviously both are crazy dictators but both are not, in fact, fascist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonBarbarian View Post
The only thing of value in any of the quotes is that some have redefined what fascism is in their own terms, which could include the nazis. If we decide to use those historians over the majority opinion than we could in fact, call nazis fascist. But in general terms, no, the nazis were not fascists. In any semantic debate it's always the source we choose for our definitions that matter.
This entire conversation has been an exercise in getting you to back up the assertion that the majority opinion of historians was that the Nazis were not fascist.

And the reluctance of some major scholars isn't quite on that level.

What sources lead you to believe that the majority of historians (not scholars, incidentally: historians) believed that Nazism was not Fascism?

I'm sure you'd be happy to take this to PMs, but given that your moving of goalposts has been so noticeable that it has been commented on, I'd rather stay in the public realm.

Quote:
It wasn't a personal attack at all. And this only continues to reinforce my point. My proof is the expert's statements on the position to describe a general trend and belief, an example of which is referenced in your own book. What you need to realize is that parts of the book talking about one thing, don't talk about everything in his book. So while in the book it may say that "this definition includes this!", that doesn't mean all definitions include it. It's important to remember context, to understand how the statements applies to the topic it regards, rather than to think that everything in the book is about the book as a whole.
You are the one saying that most historians consider Nazism and Fascism to be separate. I'm still waiting on actual evidence of that claim.

Quote:
To simplify all of this, there are two main definitions of fascism. One is fascism as a group, and the other is fascism as an ideology. Just like how a person can be a feminist, but not actively participle in actual feminist groups. The ideological definition of the new consensus is primarily what he is talking about in his book, but he does make reference to the historical view which is that of the group itself. You don't have to be a card-carrying member of the KKK to share the same viewpoint, even if you aren't actually a member. But where as people don't say you have a "KKK ideology", they do say you have a "fascist-like ideology", so that's why a distinction is needed.

""In doing so, it (the new consensus) treats fascism no differently than other generic ideologies such as communism, conversavatism, and feminism, all of which are routinely defined by the social sciences in terms of the goals they set out to achieve rather than in terms of their negations or the harm they have caused historically in attempting to realize their ideals. " Page 5, under "Ideological definition of fascism".
This is fascinating. Now, how about you prove your original point?

Shouldn't you two take this to PMs? Unless you can draw this back to US local politics and policies, that is.

As I mentioned, I have little desire to do so since he has constantly shifted the conversation, both in public and in private. I'm still impressed by how "No voter ID laws are racist" turned to "I do not accept the court's decision on the subject" because "their liberal activism circumvented the will of the people."

Circumventing the will of the people is actually built into the Constitution and is part of the Judicial branch's job. Hamilton called out the potential for tyranny of the majority repeatedly in the Federalist Papers and the separation of powers is one way it's averted. Of course, ironically, so was the Electoral College, but that clearly isn't filling its stated purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
You have done well to prove that there is a political science definition and a historical definition, which differ.

How does this support your original point, which, if you will remember, was over whether the majority of historians consider Nazis to be Fascists, not whether there is a difference between the political scientists and historians.
So, we accept that historians and political scientists had different views, of which I enumerated previously what those differences were. Pages 23-26 best detail it, but to requote myself

""Inevitability the second world war unleashed a tide of scholarly analysis of the momentous events that had just taken place as the collective consciousness of "liberal" civilization attempted to come to terms with the enormity of what had occurred. Marxists continued to refine their theory of fascism as a capitalist counter revolution but elsewhere the lack of any agreed definition of what constituted it's definitional core as a generic term ('the fascist minimum') made more than understandable that historians routinely approached fascism and nazism as two singularities, superficially related at best. Certainly they showed little interest in locating the regimes within a wider context, treating them instead as 'local' national manifest ions of a new supra-national form of modern politics on a par with liberalism or anarchism. Even today this reluctance..."


I could dig up more quotes if you want, but it seems like a waste of time. Furthermore, you were the one that provided this book as a source to try and prove me wrong. Looking at the top of page 156...

"If you have not read any books or articles on the subject, then allow me to introduce you to your first. I have obtained an article, "On the Definition of Fascism" by Roger Eatwell. Yoy may remember him from the Definitions of Fascism Wikipedia article, which is where you pulled your little exerpt of how "fascism as an ideology is also hard to define" from. He is listed as a citation, so I feel this is a reputable work."


So yes, it is your own source that I am drawing this from.

To try and tie this back in to something relevant, Trump is not a fascist. He is not remotely similar to a fascist. Even going by the uh, "political scientists" or political experts view, fascists try to gain power through heavy handed tactics and a rejection of democracy, ignoring the people's will. Trump is a populist, which by definition is virtually the implicit opposite of a fascist, given that fascists ignore the people's will and ride on strength and power as their justifiers, not the will of the people. Furthermore, according to the "new consensus", which is an ideological foundation for the term fascism, it's both a rejection of conservatism and liberalism. The term fascism can be described by Roger Griffin as "palingenetic ultranationalism", or the concept of the rebirth of a new society. Making America great again isn't a rebirth but a reversal back to a previous time, which is literally the opposite of what fascists want which is a new society. The only similirity between Trump and fascists is nationalism, and everyone is a nationalist to some extent. Even people like Richard spencers are not actual fascists even by this new definition, given he is not a nazi, but a generic white supremacist more akin to the KKK, which is a big difference given that neo-nazis hate the jews and the KKK is now accepting to both gays and jews! And he's not even a KKK member. He doesn't even hate black people, he just doesn't want to live next to them, where as nazis literally believe that genocide is the only choice.


So, this leads to my two main points. First, it's important to knowing what you're fighting against to know how to defeat it. Communists are different from nazis, are different from white nationalists, are different from anarchists and so on and recognizing how they operate is the first step to proving them wrong logically and defeating them in open combat if necessary.

Secondly, if people are so dedicated to physically assault someone they deem a nazi without realizing they're not a nazi... aren't you just as bad as the nazis? You physically assault someone based on an arbitrary identity you applied to them, and decided to use that to justify violence without first seeming to care if you were even right or wrong or not. You can't claim how much compassion you have and how bad you want to kill bad people if you don't even take the time to do a quick google search to see if someone is an actual nazi or not. People like Milo and Pewdiepie are also called nazis, and by the ideals of violently assaulting anyone who you or they claim is a nazi, you can basically justify hating anyone if you don't actually take the time to prove if they're a nazi or not. The danger of attacking someone for their ideas rests in the fact that you can easily get how a person thinks wrong, and thus if all it takes is the idea that someone might be a nazi to violently assault them, you can choose to attack anyone. Richard spencer is wrong, but knowing why he is wrong matters. If you're an American soldier that kills nazis because you're a deranged psychopath rather than good legitimate moral reasons, you're still in the wrong. You always have to be fighting for the right reasons. And if a person can't even take the time to know they are right about someone being a nazi first before assaulting them for being a nazi, how can we trust them with this violence action to begin with? Not only should you not attack people over thoughts and words, but you especially shouldn't when you can't even get what those thoughts and words are right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
As I mentioned, I have little desire to do so since he has constantly shifted the conversation, both in public and in private. I'm still impressed by how "No voter ID laws are racist" turned to "I do not accept the court's decision on the subject" because "their liberal activism circumvented the will of the people."
Citizens united, a court case presented to the supreme court, allowed unlimited corporate donations to political candidates, which has been abused by both political parties, particularly Hillary clinton. The fact it was approved by the supreme court doesn't automatically make it right. The reason we can't hold the supreme court accountable for this is that the democratic functions of our society have no means to check these people and they're appointed for life. They have no incentive to fullfill the people's will since they are not dependent on our desires to justify their position of power. This can and has resulted in a number of horrific decisions on their part in the past and will continue to do so.

I also never said that no voter ID law was racist, just that they weren't in general. Even *if* this one case in North Carolina is a case where something within the voter ID laws were racist, it's one case were something within the voter ID law as racist, not the concept of a voter ID law itself. The reason they said it was racist was because they requested information on race to be on the voter ID. If you cut that part out, apparently the voter ID laws wouldn't have been racist. So even by your own source, they are not in fact inherently racist, even if there was a case of abuse within it. Just like how banks are not inherently corrupt, there is just corruption that occurs within them. Still not real good evidence that voter ID laws are inherently racist, given that many were upheld as well (if being upheld is our standard, here).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonBarbarian View Post
So, we accept that historians and political scientists had different views, of which I enumerated previously what those differences were. Pages 23-26 best detail it, but to requote myself

""Inevitability the second world war unleashed a tide of scholarly analysis of the momentous events that had just taken place as the collective consciousness of "liberal" civilization attempted to come to terms with the enormity of what had occurred. Marxists continued to refine their theory of fascism as a capitalist counter revolution but elsewhere the lack of any agreed definition of what constituted it's definitional core as a generic term ('the fascist minimum') made more than understandable that historians routinely approached fascism and nazism as two singularities, superficially related at best. Certainly they showed little interest in locating the regimes within a wider context, treating them instead as 'local' national manifest ions of a new supra-national form of modern politics on a par with liberalism or anarchism. Even today this reluctance..."
At the bottom of page 24, he says that only in the 1960's did the gap between fascist studies and historiography begin to close when historiographically minded academics.

So it would seem that your statement that Fascism and Nazism are considered different by historians applies more to the period around and decade after WW2 than the past 50 years.

Quote:
I could dig up more quotes if you want, but it seems like a waste of time. Furthermore, you were the one that provided this book as a source to try and prove me wrong. Looking at the top of page 156...

"If you have not read any books or articles on the subject, then allow me to introduce you to your first. I have obtained an article, "On the Definition of Fascism" by Roger Eatwell. Yoy may remember him from the Definitions of Fascism Wikipedia article, which is where you pulled your little exerpt of how "fascism as an ideology is also hard to define" from. He is listed as a citation, so I feel this is a reputable work."

So yes, it is your own source that I am drawing this from.
Ah yes, my mistake. My apologies. It seems that the only sources in this conversation have been my own.

Quote:
Citizens united, a court case presented to the supreme court, allowed unlimited corporate donations to political candidates, which has been abused by both political parties, particularly Hillary clinton. The fact it was approved by the supreme court doesn't automatically make it right.
Morally? No. Legally? Yes. This is capitalism in action. Have you never heard of the golden rule?

Don't like it? Get a constitutional amendment passed.

Quote:
The reason we can't hold the supreme court accountable for this is that the democratic functions of our society have no means to check these people and they're appointed for life. They have no incentive to fullfill the people's will since they are not dependent on our desires to justify their position of power. This can and has resulted in a number of horrific decisions on their part in the past and will continue to do so.
Well, I never expected you to advocate for anarchy. Do you prefer the syndicalist interpretation, the collectivist interpretation, or the heresy of anarcho-capitalism?

Quote:
I also never said that no voter ID law was racist, just that they weren't in general. Even *if* this one case in North Carolina is a case where something within the voter ID laws were racist, it's one case were something within the voter ID law as racist, not the concept of a voter ID law itself. The reason they said it was racist was because they requested information on race to be on the voter ID. If you cut that part out, apparently the voter ID laws wouldn't have been racist. So even by your own source, they are not in fact inherently racist, even if there was a case of abuse within it. Just like how banks are not inherently corrupt, there is just corruption that occurs within them. Still not real good evidence that voter ID laws are inherently racist, given that many were upheld as well (if being upheld is our standard, here).
Of course, I never said voter ID laws are racist. I merely brought up the ones that were thrown out of court to see if you considered them racist laws or not.

You are also misrepresenting the court's thought process: They saw that the racial data was abused because members of a certain race were excluded from the voting process. You remember where it says the forms of voting and ID most heavily favored by blacks were restricted, yes?

When someone asks for demographic data, then draws regulations which neatly target certain demographics, can we deduce what has happened?




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2017-02-26 09:00:10am local time
Myth-Weavers Status