edit: seems like some people interpret “full of” as a mathematical majority which, while it may or might not be true instance to instance, isn’t my intent in posting

feel free to swap in “has a lot of” if that’s more familiar language to you :)

  • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Those examples are from 105 and 60 years ago.
    There are ways to make the point you’re going for, but invoking legislation that old doesn’t do it.

    Am I sympathetic to people who are ignorant and so voted against their own interests? Sure, a bit. A lot of southerners would take issue with trying to defend them with cries of "don’t blame them, they’re too stupid to agree with me!” though.
    Am I sympathetic to people who have been systematically disenfranchised and economically abandoned? Of course, I’m not a monster.

    The fact remains that a lot of people in red states earnestly believe in what they vote for. You can talk about class consciousness all you want, but the people fighting the culture doing so because of manipulation by the rich or powerful in a class war does fuck all to help the people loosing said culture war. I’m sure the suicidal trans kid takes great comfort that the people voting to make them illegal are just misled.

    They’ve had every opportunity to inform themselves. Maybe eventually they’ll hurt themselves enough to stop fighting the culture war you don’t want others to fight.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      60 years isn’t even close to life expectancy. so we are talking less than a lifetime ago. MLK’s daughter is alive, 62 years old (younger than most people in government) and posting on instagram about the same struggles her father fought.

      plus did you even read the part about ongoing class disenfranchisement in 2025 (poor people being kept from voting)?

      not even reading the rest of your comment since you couldn’t do the same for me. thanks for being such a genuine participant in this conversation.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I did actually read your comment, I just didn’t entirely agree with you you condescending ass.

        MLKs daughter never voted without the civil rights act. You forgot to add 18 to the age someone would need to be to have voted before the act passed.
        Most of the southern electorate is neither 78 or older, or even 60.
        The point was that it’s not a convincing argument, not that someone isn’t alive who was impacted.

        I’m not sure what class disenfranchisement has to do with the part you’re angry about. Maybe if you actually read what I said you’d have seen where I mentioned it for the rest of the comment.

        If you’re not even going to read what people say, you have no grounds to complain that people aren’t “being a genuine participant”.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          me: lists evidence of voter suppression in 1920, 1965, and today

          you: THAT WAS OVER 60 YEARS AGO

          me: i don’t think you saw the part where i said “today”

          you: name calling

          i love this website so much

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          thanks for the personal attack i guess lol you are so cool online wow so cool

          still you act like 60 years is some kind of insurmountable gap in history and that’s so cringe. the echoes of slavery and native american genocide echo from before 1776 through today. MLK didn’t magically die and then fix every barrier Black people suffered in life. that’s pretty basic history lol.

          I’m not sure what class disenfranchisement has to do with the part you’re angry about.

          all of it you silly goose. disenfranchisement means “depriving someone of the right to vote.” when the poor are depreived of the right to vote (not directly by law, but indirectly by systemic barriers), it means shocker they don’t vote. this entire thread is in response to someone saying “i guess but they voted for that too.” that’s the context you butted into, i operate on the pretty fair premise that you knew that and read the thread. :)