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
I mean I'll grumble on social media, but taking time out of my day to protest is inconceivable.
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?
edit: we rightfully so recognize people demanding proof of the holocaust as bad actors. why not with this?
That Wikipedia article has a lot of detail in it that explains things well beyond what I could within an HN comment, but I think one example is "separate but equal" which was anything but equal.
> evidence that they were intended
I will say that evidence of intent is not necessary or relevant to the claim. Subjectivity in the application and execution of the voting process--for instance, where to place polling stations--can end up disadvantaging minorities due to implicit/unconscious bias in administrators, even unintentionally.
Note, that Jim Crow was enacted not immediately after the Civil War but after the reconstruction period[3]. The aftermath of reconstruction involved a period of racist terror where the Ku Klux Klan and other forces effectively engaged in a guerilla campaign that restored white supremacy in the South.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
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. The chilling effect it has on the general population.
2. Your group might be next.
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?
(See, for instance, Jim Crow laws, redlining policies, poll taxes, etc. as many other commenters have already pointed to.)
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.
Except that key provisions of the act were struck down in 2013. Those provisions prevented states with a history of disenfranchisement from changing their voting laws. Since the court ruling several of these states have started back on the path of disenfranchisement.
If we had a magical, objective, 100% accurate way of determining whether judgments are fair and punishments are appropriate, then maybe it would make sense to suspend the voting rights of criminals. But we don't, and the only check on whether the criminal justice system is doing the right thing is the popular ballot. Allowing the criminal justice system to disenfranchise people is an obvious loophole.
Besides, what are we worried about? That criminals would vote to legalize their own crimes? If more than half the population are criminals, it's not clear that any sort of government is going to work at all....
Well, the second amendment may offer some protection as well.
If you have firsthand knowledge of any of these individuals being forced to work in this effort, by all means share it.
Because this is a pretext to create infrastructure to go after you and your family.
Many of these laws existed before the Civil War, and were simply "updated" to replace the word "slave" with "freedman".
Other laws cleverly redefined common terms, introducing technical language, so that they could claim that a former slave, forced to work for little or no pay, was "serving an apprenticeship" or "being punished for vagrancy". E.g., a slave in reality, but "on paper" an apprentice, a volunteer, serving a criminal sentence, etc.
Black Codes also severely limited the ability of black citizens to gather and organize, required impossible "literacy tests" to vote, and prevented black citizens from owning any type of weapon, either outright:
Louisiana: "No freedman shall be allowed to carry firearms, or any kind of weapons."
Or via a "may issue" licensing scheme:
Alabama: "Freedmen must not carry knives or firearms unless they were licensed so to do."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)
I have been part of a special forces raid to capture or kill and I can tell you the opponent has no realistic way to win that day. Sure you can win in the long run if you are fighting at home with the enemy fighting far away from theirs but not they you will suffer heavy losses and live in a condition far from what most of us can imagine or are prepared to do.
Ultimately the courts will decide whether the legal language "terms" includes fines and restitution. Seeing as these felons are free and fines are a civil matter I don't know how the courts could find that such things are part of their criminal sentence.
Edit: also btw I linked to reputable sources. I didn't obscure anything or omit anything.
It's right there on wiki:
>However, by mid-2019 Republican Governor DeSantis signed a bill into law which originated in the Florida Senate, SB 7066, which required that "people with felony records pay 'all fines and fees' associated with their sentence prior to the restoration of their voting rights"
It's a post facto qualifier. If fines were implied by the initial amendment this bill would be unnecessary.
What exactly would you, special forces or the government be able to do, to force them to comply with whatever order it is you are trying to impose?
You defend your rights with guns, not aircraft carriers.
It doesn't feel right that higher levels can interfere in lower levels in matters that does not affect them. We're seeing this right now in the EU, with various states trying to have their ideas promoted at the level of the EU as a whole, i.e. other nations, which clearly doesn't work because people have different cultures, traditions, etc. That's one of the reasons why Britain left.
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.
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.
"The document, consisting of 14 sections divided into bullet points, had a section on "rules of war" that stated "make an offer of peace before declaring war", which within stated that the enemy must "surrender on terms" of no abortions, no same-sex marriage, no communism and "must obey Biblical law", then continued: "If they do not yield — kill all males"." [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea#%22Biblical_Basis_fo...
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.
According to you it should be simple. Whatever the sentencing judge has put in the sentence is the sentence. But that has proven not to be the case. The governor wants the DOC to find any and all unpaid fines and fees. And they want to be allowed years to resolve it.
The judge looked at the excuses the DOCs counsel was offering and quickly swatted it down. An ex-convict that has satisfied the terms of his sentence as it is written on the sentencing docket has no reason not to have their rights restored.
Most of the MPLS protesters are also normal people fed up with the lack of attention given to the plight of minorities and the poor in the United States. So yeah, no false equivalence/hypocrisy here from me.
The laws about voting (poll taxes, grandfather clauses) did claim to not be about race to pass muster regarding the 15th amendment, but the same is not true of laws concerning exercise of other civil liberties. The bulk of Jim Crow laws were quite explicitly discriminating on race.
Society is not a game or stadium. There is no outside.
Justice is imperfect.
Laws are not all as obvious as 'breaking the bat'.
Now, responding to the part of your comment that isn't the shitty, specious analogy. You beg the question, saying that felons don't get to vote because they've opted out of civilized intercourse. You don't bother to argue the antecedent, you just assume it. That doesn't address the question being asked in the thread, it just affirms the way things are.
Don't forget the third big part: stopping them from violating the rights of others.
They do temporarily lose some rights, they do (and should) get them back when their "debt to society" is paid (which I find a slightly weird term, but whatever), why shouldn't the right to vote be one of the rights that you get back when you're rehabilitated and reintroduced into society, just like your right to freely move about?
I mean, I'm sure someone had a CCTV turned on the guys, but surely you'd agree that the Richmond protest was less surveilled and less attended by law enforcement. Broadly, I think the fact that 2A protests tend to be met with gentle indifference by law enforcement instead of the mass surveillance and control techniques used against civil rights folks rather reinforces the upthread point, no?
Now that you’re aware of this issue, I’m certain that you agree that conditioning voting on fines and fees related to a sentence is wrong.
Yeah, the gun. It is more likely to hurt you. It doesn't matter if folks are threatening to use it or not. The gun can, in general, do more bodily harm. Just because folks didn't use them doesn't mean it isn't a threat. Rocks at least have more purpose than to put holes in things - guns are there to kill other things even when used responsibly. Gun ranges are simply training for this.
Policies that aren't laws carry the same effective force of law, but they can be changed on a whim by the president with an executive order.
The Federal Home Loan Bank Act established the agencies that would create redlining, but the redlining itself was created by the administrators and independent agencies created by the act.
Not all felons, though. Only the ones we choose to surveill and prosecute. So coke-sniffing bankers tend never to be caught. But 19 year old poor hispanic kids with weed in their pockets end up in jail on a three strikes violation because the police stop them all the time just for standing on the street.
> if I were officiating a baseball game
Now extend this analogy appropriately: what if the RULES of the baseball game were only written by the winning team? And that team made it so they were allowed to do this stuff without penalty? So they always win.
And the loser team can't fix that. Because to change the rules to make them fair they have to win, and they can't. Because of the rules.
That's how this works in reality: the point to disenfranchising felons isn't to punish them, it's to keep them from voting for the party whose policies might make them less likely to be felons.
* taking a nap * eating a meal * riding a bicycle * playing Russian roulette
- Broken Hippo apparently hasn't been hit by a rock recently!8-) I joke, but...
We're speaking of men holding rocks. You underestimate the effectiveness of rocks as weapons. Every man knows how to use a rock as a weapon and almost everyone has thrown a rock or pounded something with a rock. You needn't throw a rock to kill/harm someone; it's likely faster and easier if you keep the rock in your hand.
Rocks have been used as weapons since before prehistoric times. Rocks have possibly been instruments of death for more of our ancestors than have bullets.
If you agree with the people holding the guns, you feel safer with them. If you agree with the people holding the rock, you feel safer with them. It doesn't matter what they are holding.
I think if you go look this up, you'll find that these people are not, in fact, particularly peaceful as protestors go. They're simply ignored by the police in ways that the dreadlocked hippies are not.
(I mean, sure, those are all exceptions. But then most of the people in Minneapolis weren't burning anything down either. Have you ever been to a left-wing march? This isn't a demographic known for temper.)
Painting with a mighty broad brush. So if YOU have a gun that automatically makes you a non-peaceful individual?
"Have you ever been to a left-wing march? This isn't a demographic known for temper."
Are you serious? Ever hear of Antifa?
Concealed carry does require a license (and sometimes a "training" class, which is laughable at best. (Seriously, I have never known anyone fail this class in my state. A driving license test probably has a 100 times higher failure rate.). And of course, as we are talking about a pro gun rally, carrying concealed defeats the purpose.
I'm a 2nd amendment proponent, but I've been in too many public gun ranges, too many gun shows, and been around too many idiot gun owners to think that the firearms training the vast majority of states (maybe every state?) has or provides is nearly enough. Owning a firearm in this country solely amounts too: have you yet been convicted of a felony or smoked weed?
I didn't see anything like that from the 2A protests.
If people aren't paying their debts, garnish their wages, seize their assets, or if they're flagrantly avoiding paying back debts, put them back in jail--you know, normal things that we already do which actually get people to pay back their debts. Failure to pay reparations is a legitimate concern, but it's not relevant to voting rights.
Let's not pretend this is about reparations. It's about disfranchising people.
The idea that people with handheld guns are going to take on a government with nuclear capabilities is an absurd fantasy.
I'm a supporter of the second amendment. There is plenty of justification for supporting the second amendment without entertaining absurd fantasy scenarios.
There are plenty of reasons to own firearms which have nothing to do with defending yourself against the government. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.