|
vyelkin posted:https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/746471571540283392 I am going to be stupid and ask, how bad is that? i assume its loving bad.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
Seems like promising to destroy the country in various ways is a popular way to get to power in the UK. I wonder, if I promise to detonate 100-megaton H-bombs, like the Tsar Bomba but with the extra stage they didn't put in, all across the British countryside, will you idiots make me your king? I will of course hold a referendum for it, we can call it Total Brannihilation. I promise it will not affect football. And it will make real estate super cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Over here in the stupid part of the united states people are claiming this is going to validate Trump and if it doesn't result in his election that Texas will really try to secede from the US Also that it'll take the UK 10 years to recover but they will totally be better off afterwards
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:and Boris Johnson (front row, far right) 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Wait, so why don't we have tests for voting? Just a test to see if you're even aware of what you're voting for? Like, if you can describe a few of the positions your candidate has, or the reasons your position is beneficial to society at large? If you can't even do that, you have no reason for voting. Also, if in your responding post you call me racist, can you also bother to explain why? thanks sweeties~
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Wait, so why don't we have tests for voting? Just a test to see if you're even aware of what you're voting for? apparently denying anyone the vote is against the principle of equality so here we are
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I am going to be stupid and ask, how bad is that? i assume its loving bad. It's obviously not good news but the thing to remember when news outlets report money as being "lost" on the stock market is that it's only on paper. Stock markets go up and down all the time. The wheat harvest has not withered, the fishing fleet isn't burning; all that's really happening is a bunch of assets have been temporarily devalued.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Wait, so why don't we have tests for voting? Just a test to see if you're even aware of what you're voting for? Because it's impossible to design and administer these "tests" in a way that doesn't discriminate against certain groups of people, even without the inevitable and intentional blatant racism that they'll be used to perpetrate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Wait, so why don't we have tests for voting? Just a test to see if you're even aware of what you're voting for? It's because such tests are subjective and often used to disenfranchise minorities. However, after this and all the people saying dumb poo poo like "I had no idea my vote would count" I'm starting to think you should be required to correctly answer the question: "My vote will be tallied and will affect the outcome of this election: True or False"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Wait, so why don't we have tests for voting? Just a test to see if you're even aware of what you're voting for? Because the Tory voters would disappear overnight if they actually knew what the gently caress they were voting for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Wait, so why don't we have tests for voting? Just a test to see if you're even aware of what you're voting for? All moral objections aside, there's plenty of practical problems with that position. What criteria would you even use to evaluate such a thing? How can you assure that such 'poll tests' as they were are applied objectively, impartially and evenly? Of course, that's impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Because it's impossible to design and administer these "tests" in a way that doesn't discriminate against certain groups of people, even without the inevitable and intentional blatant racism that they'll be used to perpetrate. Oh come on. It's "impossible"? I'm aware of the kind of voting restrictions cast on African-Americans in the past, but those were on purpose. An attempt made with good intent (albeit, excluding the idiots of the world, sorry idiots) would go a long way. Danakir posted:All moral objections aside, there's plenty of practical problems with that position. What criteria would you even use to evaluate such a thing? How can you assure that such 'poll tests' as they were are applied objectively, impartially and evenly? Of course, that's impossible. It is impossible for anything to be perfect. It's like how we still have IQ tests that are largely accurate, and yet people complain that they have problems. Yes, they do, but it's better to have some sort of measure than none.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Because it's impossible to design and administer these "tests" in a way that doesn't discriminate against certain groups of people, even without the inevitable and intentional blatant racism that they'll be used to perpetrate. this mentality is also part of the reason hey let's make sure the people make an informed decision no! racism! Discrimination! think about the minoritieis!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Danakir posted:All moral objections aside, there's plenty of practical problems with that position. What criteria would you even use to evaluate such a thing? How can you assure that such 'poll tests' as they were are applied objectively, impartially and evenly? Of course, that's impossible. there is not a single state apparatus anywhere in the world that is objective, impartial and even. I think the idea is that people should strive for these things whilst acknowledging that it's never going to be a perfect system, so this is kind of a non argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Oh come on. It's "impossible"? I'm aware of the kind of voting restrictions cast on African-Americans in the past, but those were on purpose. An attempt made with good intent (albeit, excluding the idiots of the world, sorry idiots) would go a long way. You can't possibly actually make sure of that. People's right to vote shouldn't be subject to another's 'good intentions'. It's utterly unenforceable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
freebooter posted:It's obviously not good news but the thing to remember when news outlets report money as being "lost" on the stock market is that it's only on paper. Stock markets go up and down all the time. The wheat harvest has not withered, the fishing fleet isn't burning; all that's really happening is a bunch of assets have been temporarily devalued. Actually a means a shitload of money just got drained out of the economy where it was being used to pay wages, fund research, grow businesses etc and instead turned into 'safe assets' to stuff under people's metaphorical mattresses. This stuff does matter, though the impact will take time to fully emerge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Danakir posted:You can't possibly actually make sure of that. People's right to vote shouldn't be subject to another's 'good intentions'. It's utterly unenforceable. It works for British nuclear launch codes; why wouldn't it work for votes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Lichy posted:there is not a single state apparatus anywhere in the world that is objective, impartial and even. I think the idea is that people should strive for these things whilst acknowledging that it's never going to be a perfect system, so this is kind of a non argument. Currently the right to vote in Britain isn't subject to rules that are subjective, partial or uneven. Or would you argue otherwise? Whether someone can or cannot vote can be said with certainty. The same cannot be said with poll tests.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:It is impossible for anything to be perfect. It's like how we still have IQ tests that are largely accurate, and yet people complain that they have problems. Yes, they do, but it's better to have some sort of measure than none. IQ tests are kind of infamously worthless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Danakir posted:You can't possibly actually make sure of that. People's right to vote shouldn't be subject to another's 'good intentions'. It's utterly unenforceable. I'm going to echo Lichy here and praise the fact that (at least in America), direct democracy has not actually existed. The people's right to vote has merely been a pretty picture to look at. The founding fathers knew that most people were idiots, and set up the electoral college.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Anyone who suggests any sort of voting test needs to be launched into the loving sun or locked in a room with Cameron after they've been slathered down with ham.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Danakir posted:Currently the right to vote in Britain isn't subject to rules that are subjective, partial or uneven. Or would you argue otherwise? Whether someone can or cannot vote can be said with certainty. The same cannot be said with poll tests. I would argue that there is a large population of immigrants and expats in Britain that cannot vote despite living there for a long time and many will not be able to vote ever because of the ever tightening migration legislation. Then there's the legal grey area of say, people who never held passports or ID documents or traveller populations. Kind of sound like the current system isn't perfect. Maybe because perfection is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
We can't even design standardized math tests for children that don't systematically discriminate against minorities and the poor, and people actually think a test that determines voting rights are a good idea. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:We can't even design standardized arithmetic tests that don't systematically discriminate against minorities and the poor, and people actually think a test that determines voting rights are a good idea. Jesus Christ. Having a question like "I am aware that my vote can influence this election" wouldn't really be an intelligence test, just a way of determining whether you actually understand the purpose of what you're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:We can't even design standardized arithmetic tests that don't systematically discriminate against minorities and the poor, and people actually think a test that determines voting rights are a good idea. Jesus Christ. Might as well never do anything ever, because minorities will be discriminated against. Seriously, a loving math test? If you're not making garbage up, then I guess it is so hopelessly impossible to not discriminate just by breathing. So you'd argue for disbanding schools, then, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
It's funny how, in response to the effects of a terrible decision based on a gut instinct (we don't want more immigrants > vote brexit) people are arguing for another terrible decision based on a gut instinct (we don't want more brexits > voting tests). Why not introduce a test you have to pass in order to be able to reproduce? All in good faith, pinky swear. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Might as well never do anything ever, because minorities will be discriminated against. You really think racial bias in standardized testing is something that's "made up"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Lower class people and minorities should not vote about things regarding them, they are too stupid to know what's better for them, unlike "us". It's not discrimination if you are objectively right. PT6A posted:Having a question like "I am aware that my vote can influence this election" wouldn't really be an intelligence test, just a way of determining whether you actually understand the purpose of what you're doing. Right, and you've read and understood every terms of services you had to agree with...
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Lichy posted:this mentality is also part of the reason For perhaps the 100,000th time, people are not calling others racist for disagreeing with them, they are calling them racist because they're being racist. I've seen a lot of posters try to push this imaginary narrative of the PC police shutting down their incredible ideas that coincidentally could be easily used to abuse minorities. Why not take the risk? It's not like anyone important(me) will be harmed. If you disagree you're clearly just an overreacting Lieberal. It's like I'm Not Racist But as a signature. My radical idea for improving the situation is actually informing people of the issues instead of screaming about brown people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Lichy posted:I would argue that there is a large population of immigrants and expats in Britain that cannot vote despite living there for a long time and many will not be able to vote ever because of the ever tightening migration legislation. Just to be clear, I never used the word 'perfect' to describe the current system. So that's not exactly relevant. The fact is that poll tests are far more arbitrary and leave far greater a margin for error and personal interference or corruption than the current system does in determining whether you have the right to vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:You really think racial bias in standardized testing is something that's "made up"? Would you mind linking the racist math test you've mentioned? And it's disappointing to me that many of you associate failing tests (tests made in good faith) with racial bias. What kind of math problems or science problems would you say that minority students, educated in the very same classes as Caucasian students, would be mentally incapable of solving?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:We can't even design standardized math tests for children that don't systematically discriminate against minorities and the poor, and people actually think a test that determines voting rights are a good idea. Jesus Christ. Any societal system will be discriminatory against something or someone. The point I'm trying to convey is that theoretical discrimination should not stifle our debate on alternative approaches to voting rights and political systems. I mean look at for example how many people complain that old voters in brexit stole the future from the young people who will be most affected. Yet not very many at all discuss solutions to this because of this assumption that only a single type of equality is acceptable - the current one. This shuts down not only this tiny dialogue, which may not even be that important. It shuts down any discussion on how to tackle the problem in a different way - it prevents people from asking questions like "How can we ensure the old think of what it is like to be young when making this important decision?".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
In a way, the Leave campaign have actually been able to back up their claims. They said that Britain could have a global effect on its own and costing the world a couple of trillion dollars certainly counts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:I don't know if this is a joke or not, but one of the big issues with the idea that nerds like to put forward that only smart people should be allowed to vote is that... not everyone has the same chance to become a smart person. Even if we lived in a perfect world where every educator was equally good at their job, where every school had an equal access to equal supplies and funding, where no advantages existed in just funding... you still run into the issues that predominantly affect non-whites and the lower class. Things like having to get a job at 15-16 to support your family. Plus, the UK has actually had University Constituencies in its history and they were not exactly bastions of enlightenment and integrity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
The reality is already that on all the important things in the UK only the smart people vote. There's about 1500 of them and they sit in a fancy building in Westminster to do it. A large proportion of them are graduates from a very small number of selective institutions that have strict and sometimes arbitrary admission requirements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Lichy posted:The reality is already that on all the important things in the UK only the smart people vote. There's about 1500 of them and they sit in a fancy building in Westminster to do it. A large proportion of them are graduates from a very small number of selective institutions that have strict and sometimes arbitrary admission requirements. The days when that said 1500 were "smart" were a century ago. Two-thirds of commons members don't know basic probability. PPE is irrelevant to modern governance. The level of scientific illiteracy -- not just in the UK! -- is astounding. Not that direct democracy would help, as we've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
MysteriousStranger posted:They've been given the standard liberal 1.2. punch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:The days when that said 1500 were "smart" were a century ago. Two-thirds of commons members don't know basic probability. PPE is irrelevant to modern governance. The level of scientific illiteracy -- not just in the UK! -- is astounding. They are certainly smart people - they convinced a great many people to vote for them, made the right connections to get nominated by their parties, and have to juggle through the paperwork and hoops of being an active politician. They may not be educated the "right" way for modern governance but they certainly are not stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:For perhaps the 100,000th time, people are not calling others racist for disagreeing with them, they are calling them racist because they're being racist. Weren't people mad at eastern europeans, also? The polish plumbers and laborers? I think this is the same old tribalism that plagued humanity for ages. When the going is good, everyone internalizes the success because they think they are awesome, immigration is great cause they can help us get even better; but when poo poo stagnates or gets worse then everyone externalizes the failure, it is those other assholes fault, gently caress those guys I dont know very well. quote:I've seen a lot of posters try to push this imaginary narrative of the PC police shutting down their incredible ideas that coincidentally could be easily used to abuse minorities. Shutting down immigration is not exactly the same thing as voting slavery back into being. I mean, really, here is a comprehensive list of all of the times that immigration was a popular policy amongst the mob: Torpor fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
Are you loving crazy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:28
|
|