Women Shouldn't Have the Right to Vote Says 'Alt-Right' Leader Richard Spencer

[Redac]

Well thats a good question. Extremes are easy of course... its those on the blurred line that becomes difficult to define. Im pointing out my frustration that I cant vote and I make an effort to know whats going on. But if I walked my g grandad to a polling station he would be allowed to.

Indeed, it can be quite difficult, but lines do have to be drawn somewhere.

 

[Dave-W]

Maybe we should go back to the days when only wealthy land or business owners could vote .....

NOT!!!

 

[Redac]

Maybe we should go back to the days when only wealthy land or business owners could vote .....

NOT!!!

Why not?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Maybe the unemployed should be banned from voting.. because you know they only vote based on temporal personal relief -and not the long-term good of the nation.

 

[super animator]

If you want to just signal to everyone else how morally and intellectually superior you are by dismissing an argument or position out of hand as being too absurd to even warrant being addressed, that's your prerogative. I would suggest you reconsider that tactic, though. It doesn't work nearly as well anymore as you might think.

Oh get off your high horse Redac, some statements are so absurd that it doesn't need refutation. Such as the notation that 2 + 2 = 5. If he doesn't like it, then he needs to justify why it isn't absurd statement by addressing common made arguments in favor of it.

 

[Redac]

Oh get off your high horse Redac, some statements are so absurd that it doesn't need refutation. Such as the notation that 2 + 2 = 5. If he doesn't like it, then he needs to justify why it isn't absurd statement by addressing common made arguments in favor of it.

Please. If anyone is on a high horse here it's you for suggesting that a social and political position like "women should be able to vote" -- which was still fairly unpopular even just over a century ago -- is equivalent to some kind of fundamental mathematical truth, and thus does not even warrant discussion or consideration. I think you and I both know that those things are not on par with one another, and all you're doing by implying that they are is demonstrating how virtuous you are. If you do think that, I'm not sure what to tell you.

This does speak more broadly to a trend that repeats itself over and over, though. Any time ideas outside the current realm of acceptability are presented, there is hardly ever any real inspection or discussion of those ideas. With the alt right specifically, people rarely try to intellectually engage with the ideas and arguments being made. Instead they fall back on pseudointellectual Freudian psychoanalysis, where there must be something wrong with that person's mind for them to have that position; or a combination of shaming and moral grandstanding.

This thread is an example of the latter. There is no real discussion expected here, no refutation or consideration of different ideas, nothing. It exists for people to pop in, say how absurd it is and how sickened they are, and to pat themselves and each other on the back for being such morally enlightened beings.

It'd be one thing if this was just happening on a forum like this where it will have little effect anyway, but this happens everywhere. Of course race is purely a sociological construct, of course everyone is equal, of course diversity is good and beautiful, etc. These are treated less as arguments to be made and more as religious dogma, and any deviation from orthodoxy treated as heresy.

The point, though, is that this does not work very well anymore. If you want to stop right wing ideas, you have to actually engage with those ideas, not just wave your hand and dismiss them as self-evidently absurd. The continued growth of the far right would suggest that this simply does not work.

 

[Zoii]

I have started to attend a philosophy group at my university. I've joined so I get more confident at forming complex concepts in my head and then trying to express them without bumbling.

One topic was, is democracy the best form of effective government. Wow this debate really got elevated. I mention it because one point raised embraced the constant ineffectiveness of governments in democratic nations because of the constraint to get vital legislation passed by the government's opposition and senate. Note of course I know that opposition is a safety net, but in my country obvious legislative requirements are locked up in political Play _ making and not for the benefit of the country.

 

[Redac]

I have started to attend a philosophy group at my university. I've joined so I get more confident at forming complex concepts in my head and then trying to express them without bumbling.

A commendable course of action!

One topic was, is democracy the best form of effective government. Wow this debate really got elevated. I mention it because one point raised embraced the constant ineffectiveness of governments in democratic nations because of the constraint to get vital legislation passed by the government's opposition and senate. Note of course I know that opposition is a safety net, but in my country obvious legislative requirements are locked up in political Play _ making and not for the benefit of the country.

An issue, yes, but many would argue that's a feature rather than a flaw. One of my primary problems with democracy, especially as constituted in modern liberal democracies, is that it erodes any sort of national unity by its very nature.

 

[Tanj]

No my point is really that he is eligible to vote though. If i wanted I could say c'mon grandad I'll help you. I just don't think there's any stipulations around mental competence.

You think incorrectly. My mother is not allowed to vote due to Alzheimer's. If your grandfather has serious problems and didn't appoint a power of attorney then you can get administrative rights through a tribunal. Either way it is possible to get a ruling that removes him from the electoral roll.

 

[Zoii]

You think incorrectly. My mother is not allowed to vote due to Alzheimer's. If your grandfather has serious problems and didn't appoint a power of attorney then you can get administrative rights through a tribunal. Either way it is possible to get a ruling that removes him from the electoral roll.

Oh is that right. Yes power of attorney is established so... Ok sorry grandad. But you get my point though regarding a person's competence to vote. And just to challenge a little further.... If a person's vote is going to affect the welfare of everyone, should they have a minimum intellectual capacity.

 

[Gene2memE]

Men shouldn't be able to vote.

The period when only men could vote was vastly more violent and prone to warfare, with worse outcomes for all in society. Obviously then, we should take away the rights of men to vote.

 

[Vylo]

If you want to just signal to everyone else how morally and intellectually superior you are by dismissing an argument or position out of hand as being too absurd to even warrant being addressed, that's your prerogative. I would suggest you reconsider that tactic, though. It doesn't work nearly as well anymore as you might think.

I'm beginning to think we should just go my grandfather's route from WW2.

 

[Redac]

I'm beginning to think we should just go my grandfather's route from WW2.

Wow, so tough.

Out of curiosity, whose worldview, particularly regarding race, is probably closer to how the people of your grandfather's generation saw things: the alt right, or 21st century progressives?

 

[Sketcher]

No my point is really that he is eligible to vote though. If i wanted I could say c'mon grandad I'll help you. I just don't think there's any stipulations around mental competence.

There used to be exams you had to pass in order to be able to vote in the US, administered at the state level. Problem is, they were used to keep black people from voting. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it has proven to defeat the purpose of having elections in the first place.

 

[super animator]

Please. If anyone is on a high horse here it's you for suggesting that a social and political position like "women should be able to vote" -- which was still fairly unpopular even just over a century ago -- is equivalent to some kind of fundamental mathematical truth, and thus does not even warrant discussion or consideration.

You are splitting hairs here, by missing the point made by an example. The example was made to drive the point home on how some things are taken for granted when it comes to "truth", the equivalency of it is irrelevant.

"This does speak more broadly to a trend that repeats itself over and over, though. Any time ideas outside the current realm of acceptability are presented, there is hardly ever any real inspection or discussion of those ideas. With the alt right specifically, people rarely try to intellectually engage with the ideas and arguments being made. Instead they fall back on pseudointellectual Freudian psychoanalysis, where there must be something wrong with that person's mind for them to have that position; or a combination of shaming and moral grandstanding."

You need to stop with the fallacy that all ideas are equal. Even more so when it have been shown to be wrong with evidence and arguments, etc. People mock flat earthers due to this very reason as they are blinded by their ideology/religion/belief-system, as I should know, because I have talk to the same kind of people here on these very forums.

"This thread is an example of the latter. There is no real discussion expected here, no refutation or consideration of different ideas, nothing. It exists for people to pop in, say how absurd it is and how sickened they are, and to pat themselves and each other on the back for being such morally enlightened beings."
You can find that sort of behavior in TD subreddit or the conversative subreddit, but I don't see you complaining about that?

 

[Vylo]

Wow, so tough.

Out of curiosity, whose worldview, particularly regarding race, is probably closer to how the people of your grandfather's generation saw things: the alt right, or 21st century progressives?

21st century progressives. I'm one of the more conservative members of my family. The only one probably more conservative is my grandfather on the other side of the family.

 

[Redac]

21st century progressives. I'm one of the more conservative members of my family. The only one probably more conservative is my grandfather on the other side of the family.

Not your grandfather. His generation and the people living during the 1940s. If you think the views on race and race relations of society at large during the 40s were overall more like 21st century progressives, you're quite misinformed.

 

[Redac]

You are splitting hairs here, by missing the point made by an example. The example was made to drive the point home on how some things are taken for granted when it comes to "truth", the equivalency of it is irrelevant.

That's not the comparison you made though. You said that some statements are so absurd that they don't need refutation, such as "2+2=5". You drew the equivalency as an excuse for dismissing the notion that "women shouldn't have the vote" as if that position violated some fundamental principle of nature and logic. These are very unlike and so the equivalency is relevant. You did not appear to be merely describing how it was taken for granted in the same way -- and either way, that something is largely taken for granted does not mean it is therefore reasonable to dismiss any sort of dissension out of hand.

You need to stop with the fallacy that all ideas are equal. Even more so when it have been shown to be wrong with evidence and arguments, etc. People mock flat earthers due to this very reason as they are blinded by their ideology/religion/belief-system, as I should know, because I have talk to the same kind of people here on these very forums.

You think I need to stop with "the fallacy that all ideas are equal" -- which I don't recall doing -- and then two sentences later you bring up the idea of a flat earth. Again, you are conflating very different kinds of ideas and arguments. One -- the shape of the earth and whether or not it's flat -- is an empirically observable fact of the universe. You can measure it in a number of ways, you could even just fly out really far and look at the earth. The other -- that women (or whoever, really) should not have voting rights -- is not an idea that can be refuted in the same way, or dismissed as if it were obviously contradictory to observable physical reality. You could dismiss it as if it violates some fundamental law of the universe, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do so.

You can find that sort of behavior in TD subreddit or the conversative subreddit, but I don't see you complaining about that?

That you don't see something happening does not mean that it does not happen.

I do take issue with the way certain subreddits will suppress certain views, but the difference is that many of those places, particularly somewhere like the_Donald, are not intended to be spaces for debate and confrontation, and this is made explicit. This place, on the other hand, falls under the "Discussion and Debate" section. A better comparison for a place like the_Donald would be one of the Safehouse threads in the American Politics subforum.

 

[Audacious]

Please. If anyone is on a high horse here it's you for suggesting that a social and political position like "women should be able to vote" -- which was still fairly unpopular even just over a century ago -- is equivalent to some kind of fundamental mathematical truth, and thus does not even warrant discussion or consideration.

Do you ever ask questions like "should men be able to vote"? Or just women?

The reason we don't debate these topics is because they're mind-bendingly obvious. You need a reason to stop someone from voting, not to allow them to vote -- being able to vote is the default thing, here. Everyone should be able to vote unless there is a good reason.

So unless we suddenly have new information that would imply that women shouldn't vote, they should be able to vote.

(I also think that convicted felons should be able to vote, for similar reasons.).

 

[Redac]

Do you ever ask questions like "should men be able to vote"? Or just women?

I question at times whether anyone should be allowed to vote. So yes.

The reason we don't debate these topics is because they're mind-bendingly obvious. You need a reason to stop someone from voting, not to allow them to vote -- being able to vote is the default thing, here. Everyone should be able to vote unless there is a good reason.

This is not some self-evident truth about the universe, believe it or not.

(I also think that convicted felons should be able to vote, for similar reasons.).

Somehow this doesn't surprise me.