Is Revolution The Only Viable Solution?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

There's a difference though, between telling a racist to shut the fuck up, and calling for government restrictions on speech.  I'm not about to advocate violence against hate speech, but I'm also not going to lose any sleep over what's his face Nazi 'alt-right' Spencer dude getting punched in the face.

I hear you. I agree that telling someone to shut the fuck up is perfectly acceptable. That is you exercising your Free Speech. Making somebody shut the fuck up (i.e. smacking someone in the face) is a different matter. 

Just for clarifications sake, I had the same reaction you did the first time I saw Spencer get sucker-punched. I laughed. It really took seeing other liberals whose opinions I normally agree with and respect applauding the act that I kind of redrew my line. I believe it is short-sighted to applaud the blocking of Free Speech. That's all. Spencer's views are abhorrent, and the idea that I am somehow supporting or defending his shitty ideology makes me sick. That's not at all what I'm doing.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ME,

I disagree with everything Spencer stands for and I think it was wrong for him to be punched.  I also think he deserved a smack in the mouth for what he says.  

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Human life is less important than a process?  Similar question that I asked Ser Scot.  If Trump starts rounding up <group>, do you wring your hands and complain to Congress, which beside being complicit, would probably take months or years to rectify it, or is action to frotect those lives more important?

Do we really have a democracy?

Now that is a cause that I could see getting violent over, absolutely. I'm not saying that violent revolution should be ruled out under any and all circumstance. The hypothetical you provided would be a good example of what I would consider to be a justifiable reason to engage in such a revolution.

 We have a Representative Republic, which is a form of democracy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Robin,

Sadly, Gerrymandering has been going on for decades.  Heck, do you think it was a coincidence that when "Minority-Majority" districts were created for the first time in the early 90's that after their creation the Republicans took control of the HOR for the first time in 40 years?  That crack allowed the Republicans to concentrate Minority voters, who tend to vote Democratic, into fewer districts and made other districts (non-minority majority) more competitive for Republicans.  I point this out to show how a idea to make Congress more representative has ended up making Congress less effective for Minority voters.

[Robin Of House Hill]

14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Now that is a cause that I could see getting violent over, absolutely. I'm not saying that violent revolution should be ruled out under any and all circumstance. The hypothetical you provided would be a good example of what I would consider to be a justifiable reason to engage in such a revolution.

 We have a Representative Republic, which is a form of democracy.

It is a representative republic, but it is not representative.  If Idaho has the same number of senators as NY, that is not representative.  If political districts have been Gerrymandered to give one party a decisive advantage over the other, that is no representative.  I think you are trying to preserve something that doesn't really exist.

 

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Robin,

Sadly, Gerrymandering has been going on for decades.  Heck, do you think it was a coincidence that when "Minority-Majority" districts were created for the first time in the early 90's that after their creation the Republicans took control of the HOR for the first time in 40 years?  That crack allowed the Republicans to concentrate Minority voters, who tend to vote Democratic, into fewer districts and made other districts (non-minority majority) more competitive for Republicans.  I point this out to show how a idea to make Congress more representative has ended up making Congress less effective for Minority voters.

So, can it still be called democracy when it has been distorted in that manner?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

It is a representative republic, but it is not representative.  If Idaho has the same number of senators as NY, that is not representative.  If political districts have been Gerrymandered to give one party a decisive advantage over the other, that is no representative.  I think you are trying to preserve something that doesn't really exist.

It is corrupt as all fuck, for sure. No disagreement there. It may well be past the point where it can be realistically reformed without revolution of one sort or another, I'll grant you that. I'd just prefer that we manage that trick without violence.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

It is a representative republic, but it is not representative.  If Idaho has the same number of senators as NY, that is not representative.  If political districts have been Gerrymandered to give one party a decisive advantage over the other, that is no representative.  I think you are trying to preserve something that doesn't really exist.

 

So, can it still be called democracy when it has been distorted in that manner?

Robin,
 

I don't know... can it?  Can you call a system that tests to ensure only the people you agree with have the franchise a democracy?  

[Robin Of House Hill]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It is corrupt as all fuck, for sure. No disagreement there. It may well be past the point where it can be realistically reformed without revolution of one sort or another, I'll grant you that. I'd just prefer that we manage that trick without violence.

I really wish you luck with that.  I'm nowhere near optimistic in that regard.

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Robin,
 

I don't know... can it?  Can you call a system that tests to ensure only the people you agree with have the franchise a democracy?  

My all time favorite expression is, "If you cannot say what you mean, you can never mean what you say," yet you think that my saying people able to understand what they are voting for and not be batshit crazy, means I only want people who agree with me to vote. That only makes sense if all Trump supporters are presumed to lack intelligence and are deranged.  Of course, if that is what you think, we may actually be in agreement.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I really wish you luck with that.  I'm nowhere near optimistic in that regard.

My all time favorite expression is, "If you cannot say what you mean, you can never mean what you say," yet you think that my saying people able to understand what they are voting for and not be batshit crazy, means I only want people who agree with me to vote. That only makes sense if all Trump supporters are presumed to lack intelligence and are deranged.  Of course, if that is what you think, we may actually be in agreement.

Robin,

Can intelligence be measured objectively?  If not should subjective standards be used to deny people the right to vote?

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Robin,

Can intelligence be measured objectively?  If not should subjective standards be used to deny people the right to vote?

Finally, we get to the heart of the matter.In the past, IQ tests have been shown to have a bias against certain groups.  A great amount of care would have to be taken to see that whatever test was used, was as objective as humanly possible to make it. It would have to be tested in all population centers to ensure that it was not biased by quality of education, had universally understandable questions was not biased against those with disabilities such as blindness or deafness.  A difficult area would be how to make it fair to those with learning disabilities, because intelligence and ability to learn are not synonymous.  Despite the difficulty, I do think an IQ test can be devised that is objective.  Subjective results would not pass constitutional muster.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Finally, we get to the heart of the matter.In the past, IQ tests have been shown to have a bias against certain groups.  A great amount of care would have to be taken to see that whatever test was used, was as objective as humanly possible to make it. It would have to be tested in all population centers to ensure that it was not biased by quality of education, had universally understandable questions was not biased against those with disabilities such as blindness or deafness.  A difficult area would be how to make it fair to those with learning disabilities, because intelligence and ability to learn are not synonymous.  Despite the difficulty, I do think an IQ test can be devised that is objective.  Subjective results would not pass constitutional muster.

Which is why I don't believe this works.  But if you are talking "Revolution" why would it need to "pass Constitutional muster"?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Because replacing one unfairness with another, will only repeat the cycle.  I don't know if what I suggest is within the realm of possibility, but the idea is to end the need for revolution.

[LongRider]

I don't see IQ tests for voting as revolutionary, but de-evolutioanry.  The USA has been down the road of 'literacy tests' for black voters and poor whites before it was wrong then and it would be wrong now.  The literacy tests and other abuses did help to bring about the Voter Rights act which some may have seen as being revolutionary. 

In the vote in November, 3 million more voters voted for the losing candidate than the winning one.  How many of those 3 million would have passed an IQ test?  The problem wasn't their IQ, but the Electoral College and the location of 77,000 thousand voters in three states. 

Changing the Electoral College for a more fair system in the USA would be revolutionary.

[TrueMetis]

8 hours ago, Wolfgang I said:

The only real question is will the people controlling the robots/drones bother with bread and circuses for the rest of humanity(except the small number of experts necessary to keep the system running if strong AIs are not a thing).

I don't see how they could not. Corporation can only exist if people can buy their goods so if they have control over the machines they would need there to be some sort of universal income to keep themselves going, any remotely democratic government is going to have to in order to remain in power, and the people designing and building these machines tend to be doing it to help humanity as a whole. The only way humanity as a whole doesn't end up well off is if the machines somehow get controlled by some evil for the sake of evil people who just refuse to share the wealth. Which I find unlikely would be allowed to happen during the transition time, which I imagine will suck quite a bit as various entities refuse to see where the wind is blowing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

NLR,

Exactly.

6 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I don't see IQ tests for voting as revolutionary, but de-evolutioanry.  The USA has been down the road of 'literacy tests' for black voters and poor whites before it was wrong then and it would be wrong now.  The literacy tests and other abuses did help to bring about the Voter Rights act which some may have seen as being revolutionary. 

In the vote in November, 3 million more voters voted for the losing candidate than the winning one.  How many of those 3 million would have passed an IQ test?  The problem wasn't their IQ, but the Electoral College and the location of 77,000 thousand voters in three states. 

Changing the Electoral College for a more fair system in the USA would be revolutionary.

Heck, if we expand the HoR and increase the number of Representatives based on Population as the Constitution intended the disproportionate weight given to rural areas is largely addressed.  No Constitutional Amendment needed to do that.

[Robin Of House Hill]

NLR

A few weeks ago, I watched an interview of people who voted for trump.  They were asked if he was doing a good job.  Most of them said yes.  They based their answers on what he wanted to do, rather than what he actually did.  In other words, they were incapable of discerning wish from reality.  I'm not sure if that speaks to intelligence, or cognitive ability.

BTW. the irony is that the Electoral College was devised to deter a populist election, but did the exact opposite.

[Robin Of House Hill]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

NLR,

Exactly.

Heck, if we expand the HoR and increase the number of Representatives based on Population as the Constitution intended the disproportionate weight given to rural areas is largely addressed.  No Constitutional Amendment needed to do that.

The Senate is a big problem, there, especially since they "advise and consent."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

The Senate is a big problem, there, especially since they "advise and consent."

It will take a revolution to change the Senate.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Or a constitutional amendment.

[LongRider]

11 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

NLR

A few weeks ago, I watched an interview of people who voted for trump.  They were asked if he was doing a good job.  Most of them said yes.  They based their answers on what he wanted to do, rather than what he actually did.  In other words, they were incapable of discerning wish from reality.  I'm not sure if that speaks to intelligence, or cognitive ability.

BTW. the irony is that the Electoral College was devised to deter a populist election, but did the exact opposite.

As much as I despise Trump, I feel it was the system of the EC that really screwed us this time.  It might have been devised to deter a populist election, and that may of worked in1877, but now it distorts our way of electioneering and election results.  A person who was behind 3 million votes should not have won the election.  We also shouldn't have 'fly over' states nor have candidates concentrate their time and money on the states that would 'get them to 270', it's ludicrous. 

The HoR and Senate might use some changes, the EC needs to changed first and the sooner the better.