You're viewing a single thread.
It needs to be called out just how weird it is that US Senators like this don’t understand the very document they have sworn to uphold.
The bar has been lowered so much that I wouldn't be surpised to learn that some of them couldn't even read.
I don't think Diane Feinstein could really even comprehend anything at the end.
We should be careful about language like "can't read," when discussing taking away rights though. There are blind people who literally "can't read," but can comprehend information in an equivalent format and who'd be much more competent than someone like Feinstein.
Out of curiosity, what word do you use to describe the act of run fingers over brail characters to process their meaning?
We do not know exactly how many people can read Braille, but at one point it was estimated to be 10% of blind people could read Braille. So 90% of blind people cannot read Braille. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0145482X211071125?journalCode=jvba#:~:text=Another source for the 10,the United States” (p.
Braille is also expensive and takes up significantly more paper. It is more time consuming to use. Compared to audiobooks, Braille is typically considered inferior and outdated in many circles. I already knew about Braille before I commented, yes. Reading should not be the bar to deny someone rights. It also was a classic racist tactic too. It's a bad thing to advocate for (denying rights based on reading ability).
Being unable to read shouldn't be the bar to deny someone rights. But maybe it should be considered when we're talking about placing them in a position where they have power and influence over millions of people??
Honestly, I have no idea how you turned someone shitting on idiots into this attack on the blind.
Honestly, I have no idea how you turned someone shitting on idiots into this attack on the blind.
Here's my original point, which is very clearly explaining this:
We should be careful about language like “can’t read,” when discussing taking away rights though. There are blind people who literally “can’t read,” but can comprehend information in an equivalent format and who’d be much more competent than someone like Feinstein.
Lol you don't understand how disability factors into this? Or maybe just the simple parameter declaring "if they can't read, they aren't fit for office," and how such statements are ableist including against blind people? Like next you all will suggest if they can't guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, they can't run for office. What's wrong, it's "just" a basic competency test meant to advocate to deny people rights. It's just people's rights, who cares about that? Let's take them all away, rights are meaningless. If you are a man, you are now the slave of every woman and you dont get to have independent thought. How about we start with those rights instead of advocating for stripping the disabled and those who can't read of their rights. :)
Btw rights for disability were passed during the same time period as abortion rights and women's rights - and those are actively being attacked these days as well. I don't appreciate any speech along the lines of "if you can't read you can't run for office."
Ok dude. If you want to be mad about this, then be mad.
By all means, let's invite more incompetent morons from the right into political offices. Wouldn't want anyone to think we hate blind people somehow. Because wanting the leaders of a country to be literate is apparently ableist and as morally reprehensible as transphobia and literal slavery lmao. No slippery slopes here!
Yes, the key to stopping fascists on the right is to engage in hateful fascist rhetoric ourselves /s
There's a reason Nazis loved calling people lazy and loved killing disabled people. It's a bad look on your part.
Yes, voting rights have indeed been denied based on reading ability. This isnt a slippery slope, its what literally happened. That is unlawful, as is denying someone the right to run for office for the same reason. I think people should be allowed to vote for who they want. If they want to vote for that person, that's fine. It's not on us to be control freaks and demand people only vote for who we want. That's not democracy.
If you want more competent people in office, the way to fix that is fixing citizen's united, allowing felons to vote and run for office, to grant greater voting accessibility, and campaign reform. Not to engage in fascist policy by denying people rights.
At this point I'm almost for requiring at least some sort of legal degree for these positions.
The only problem is that means more lawyers in positions of power.
As a former lawyer, I think that's a terrible idea as many of my former colleagues are basically retarded (but still cunning enough to get by the average person).
Yeah I agree. That's why I said almost.
They should at least know about the constitution though.
a LOT of the people most important to governing within the constitution, enforcing it, and specifically hired to protect your rights granted by it, know little, to nothing, about it