zlacker

>>jbegle+(OP)
Post US Civil war, we encoded a set of rules that on their face did not discriminate on race. But their effect was basically to prevent black people from voting and enjoying their civil liberties.

Now we are encoding these biases into models built with mass surveillance. Many of us upper middle class white folks turn a blind eye. Subconsciously we know that’s not really targeting us. “We have nothing to hide” is the battle cry of the apathetic middle class person... when you trace the origin not just to law and order but the “war on terrorism” the relationship to race is even more depressing.

Maybe when we examine deeper we see those using the tools of mass surveillance look like us (heck are from this industry!). This same people working in the surveillance industry only imagine getting the “bad guys” not people that look like them!

On their face this has nothing to do with race. Examine deeper and you see, it’s far easier to take away civil liberties when it’s the “other” it’s being taken away from. Where the in group can blissfully rationalize what’s happening to get on with their day

>>softwa+Au
> we encoded a set of rules that on their face did not discriminate on race. But their effect was basically to prevent black people from voting and enjoying their civil liberties.

That is quite a claim. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing, as I don't know enough about this. Could you share some specific examples of the rules that you are referring to and evidence that they were intended to prevent black people from voting and enjoying their civil liberties?

>>yosito+7E
Some of these no longer exist, but some do:

Grandfather voting clauses: https://www.thoughtco.com/grandfather-clauses-voting-rights-...

Felony disfranchisement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_t...

Related to felony disfranchisement, the war on drugs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_war_on_drugs

Gun control laws: https://newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racist

Literacy tests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting

Cash bail: https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/02/bail-reform-and-risk-as...

Stop and frisk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit...

Some of these fall under the broader category of Jim Crow Laws[1], but most the original Jim Crow Laws are more obvious in their racism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

>>kerkes+AG
btw in florida the voters literally overwhelmingly voted for an amendment that re-enfranchised felons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_Amendment_4

and republicans are still trying to subvert it by sneaking in restitution as a prerequisite. it was challenged in the courts, overturned, and now appealed

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/27/844297011/voting-rights-for-h...

check out this tweet

https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1264687609995026437

Edit: what exactly am I getting downvoted for? Did I post something that wasn't factually correct? Did I use foul language? Did I antagonize?

>>throwl+dL
You're not explaining the other side of the story.

Many felons are convicted and owe fees to their victims, or to the govt. If you commit a violent crime, or a financial crime, there can be a financial penalty. Many of the felons that want to vote, never paid back their victims, or the state, for the crimes they were committed.

The Florida proposition "restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation"

Now, they want to vote, but still haven't compensated their victims, which was a part of the sentence, based on a lawful conviction.

>>JarlUl+tO
I still don’t understand why we deny felons the right to vote while they are serving their sentence, so extending this to nonpayment of fines seems even more arbitrary.

>>saagar+qX
One obvious answer is that we've found them to be problematic with regards to living peacefully with other people, so much so that we feel the need to physically remove them so they cannot hurt others. Why would we allow them to vote under those circumstances?

>>luckyl+m11
It's analogous to taxation without representation.

Jailed felons are subject to the laws of the land, but have no say in what those laws are. I think that's unjust.

It's especially nefarious when you consider all the people in jail for non-violent offenses.

>>kelnos+lf1
There's the idea that, felons have opted out of civilized intercourse. You can't do that, then pick and choose which rights you want to keep. After you've deliberately violated rights of others.

In the past, felons were transported. It was cruel and caused unspeakable suffering. Kind of like what the felons did. So a balance of a sort.

I've got the strange feeling that Mars may not be the rich person's paradise folks joke about. It may be a prison colony. The rigors of the trip (permanent physical impairment) may preclude soft rich people from applying for the trip.

Anyway, to return to the topic, if I were officiating a baseball game and somebody came out on the field and broke the bat, pried up the bases and tossed the ball over the fence, I'd evict them from the park. It's only sensible. They can't obey the rules, they're out. Otherwise the game is completely disrupted.

>>JoeAlt+Hf1
Where is this “idea that felons have opted out of civilized intercourse”? Spaghetti Westerns? North Korea? It certainly isn’t an idea aligned with American values.

Imprisonment is meant for rehabilitation in addition to punishment. There’s the idea, at least in theory, that people who commit crimes can eventually be functional members of society with full rights given a second chance. So we send people to prison and then let them resume their lives as citizens afterwards. If they owe money due to a civil suit they can still vote because why wouldn’t they? Franchise isn’t tied to financial means and shouldn’t be.