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 :)
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 :)
Who said the lingering effects of slavery didn’t have an impact? You said the voting rights act and universal suffrage being recent meant that a lot of people in the south were disenfranchised before them, hence they couldn’t vote for the way things are. Most people in the south did not have their voting rights impacted by policy before those to effect because they weren’t alive.
That’s why I didn’t say systemic racism doesn’t exist, or that economic or political disenfranchisement doesn’t exist, I said that those aren’t compelling evidence to make the valid point you’re going for. I then proceeded to talk about other stuff related to your post, which you would know if you bothered to read instead of assuming that anyone that didn’t entirely agree with you must be disingenuous.
and still can’t. voter repression still happens. in 2025. said it before. you ignored it. brought it back up again. you called me an ass. said it a third time, and you called me bad faith.
i gave a timeline of problems (A B C) and you ignored the most recent, most relevant, date in the timeline (C) three times. three times you ignored C. just to be clear. my point is C. the current ongoing crisis is C. C is the issue i am concerned about in making this entire post. C is proof that the progress of A and B has not come to fruition.
thank you for your time.
Can you point out where I said it doesn’t? Are you even actually reading?
You act as though I railed against the notion of voter suppression when one sentence said one part of what you said wasn’t compelling for the point you were making.
I didn’t ignore your point, I fucking agreed with it a few sentences later. I called you an ass because you angrily said you didn’t read the reply after one sentence and accused me of being disingenuous.
Perhaps what you misunderstand is the concept of intersectional disenfranchisement. If I am a Black woman, and my mother was a Black woman, and her mother was a Black woman, then statistically and historically in the U.S., only 1/3 of us had the opportunity to vote in our daughter’s best interest due to the compounded effects of anti-Black and anti-woman status quos (not to mention other factors like anti-poverty, anti-queerness, religious discrimination, migrant discrimination, abuse of the the felony system to make free labor, and many more). When I speak today, I carry not just my own voice, but the silenced ones of those who came before me, denied the right to shape the future they birthed.
And because of that generational silencing, my daughter and I live with the consequences — in the schools we attend, the care we receive, the safety we’re afforded, and the doors still closed to us. We did not vote for this.
You are right you didn’t say it doesn’t, not would I ever shove words in your mouth like that.
What you did say is “[your examples showing an ongoing issue between before 1920-today] are from 60 years ago” blatantly false! 2025 is today. ;)
No I act as though, under a comment affirming the dignity of the oppressed despite their separation from democratic self-determination, you started chirping about how I’m ignoring trans people or something. That’s pretty disingenuous to me, sorry not sorry.