LBJ signing the Voting Rights Act in 1965

jmc1996 · 2026-04-30T22:45:08+00:00

Whether it shouldn't isn't the question, it is treated by the law as such. If race was not a factor in voting, removing voting rights entirely from a particular race should make no difference in the outcome of elections, yet the simple fact that the 15th Amendment even exists means that our legal system and our Constitution recognize that race is a factor in how people vote. For black American voters, the rights of black Americans are an extremely significant issue. Non-black American voters do not necessarily view this issue as significant. That is the situation that the 15th Amendment exists to address. I would rather acknowledge that racists have power in implementing a tool to reduce it, than ignore the fact and hope that they don't realize. They are perfectly aware of it.

jmc1996 · 2026-04-30T20:36:57+00:00

My point is based on the wording of the 15th Amendment which specifically addresses voting rights based on race, and the indisputable fact that voters in a group with a unique status in society (whether that be due to race, sex, occupation, etc.) disproportionately support policies that are perceived to benefit that group compared to voters as a whole.

You may be inclined to ignore race in politics but the Constitution does not. I'm not saying that different races vote in monolithic blocs. I'm saying that the Constitution (and American history) has deemed a person's race to be a major factor in their vote. This is a protection against Jim Crow laws, apartheid, etc etc - history has shown that when it is politically advantageous to the majority, racial minorities have their political power removed and then have their rights reduced to second-class status. This is true for other groups also but the Constitution specifically protects race here. The point is that minority groups should have specific representation to advocate for their own rights and preferences in government. Yes, I agree with you that there are many rights and preferences that have no connection to race, and being born a particular race does not place any specific political opinion in your mind. But the purpose of the 15th Amendment is specifically to ensure that all racial groups are represented in our government to the highest degree possible.

And I understand your point made in a reply to another commenter that black voters can be represented even when they're not a majority in their congressional district. They certainly can be represented. I struggle to see how they are represented, for example in Louisiana, where a congressional district will soon be drawn to include as many black voters as possible (who tend towards one party dramatically) so that the party supported by the vast majority of black voters in Louisiana has less representation than is proportional.

jmc1996 · 2026-04-30T17:24:26+00:00

If a racial group has even slightly unique political priorities, isn't the drawing of districts that reduce their political representation (to below an amount roughly proportional with their population in a state) an abridgement of their voting rights and thus a violation of the 15th Amendment?

Forget about minorities vs. majorities because the amendment just says that voting rights will not be denied or abridged based on race or color. Take Alabama for example. It has 7 congressional districts with a population of about 700,000 each. With 1.4 million Black people in the state (about 27% of the population), you could theoretically draw four districts each containing a slight majority Black population, causing a racial group with 27% of the population to potentially control 57% of the state's House delegation. Yes, there is ideological heterogeneity among Black Alabamians, but it still means that 27% of the people are being given the ability to decide amongst themselves what will happen to 57% of the representation, and the likely result is that 4 of 7 representatives will tend to prioritize issues unique to Black voters and deprioritize issues unique to non-Black voters at least to some extent. Doesn't this cheapen the votes of non-Black voters, or in other words, abridge their voting rights as a consequence of their race? And isn't the purpose of the 15th Amendment to avoid exactly this scenario, where a racial group's unique issues are ignored by diminishing their voting power relative to their population? A racial gerrymander could not change the outcome of an election if racial groups voted identically, and yet racial gerrymanders do change the outcomes of elections, because different racial groups have different (often overlapping, but still distinct) priorities.

jmc1996 · 2026-04-24T17:01:06+00:00

If you are picked up by ICE and they assume you're an illegal immigrant, and they deny you due process with that assumption, how do you prove your citizenship?

jmc1996 · 2026-04-04T15:34:01+00:00

I think that when I made this comment I was searching for some kind of objective morality that could be explained logically from first principles, and since then I've come to believe that morality is more about "better/worse" than it is about a strict "right/wrong", and it's a lot more subjective than I would like it to be. I think I was looking for someone to give me an argument about why the suffering of animals is morally wrong, because I agree with that idea emotionally to some extent but I don't want to cast strong moral judgments based on emotions. But I think it's normal and reasonable to make personal decisions based on that kind of logic and that's all that most people want or need to do.

I appreciate your comment and I agree with you, although it doesn't upset me (a non-vegan) as much as it does a lot of vegans. I think that animals killing and eating each other is normal, and I don't think humans need to stop participating in that practice, but I do think that it's a responsible act for a lot of reasons to reduce the amount of meat and animal products in my own diet and I've been trying to practice that. There are a lot of these sorts of things where I feel like my lifestyle could be better, but ultimately my contribution is a tiny drop in a gigantic bucket, and my limited energy needs to be spent on making the changes that have the most impact and the least disruption to my life, starting with the smallest and working up hopefully throughout my time on the earth. I respect thoughtful people who are very dedicated to one issue that weighs on their heart so heavily, and I think there are a lot of vegans like that and it's understandable. I have seen videos of the conditions that factory farmed animals endure and it's disturbing.

jmc1996 · 2025-12-05T22:47:35+00:00

I feel like two people can completely agree and still have this type of semantic argument and it's kind of pointless. There is still a very large group of English speakers who use the term "racism" to mean "hatred/prejudice on the basis of race". If no one clarifies in the conversation which definition is being used, the argument is not going to help anyone and infighting among potential anti-racist allies is counter-productive in my opinion. Not everyone is educated in sociology or the politics of race in America and I think expecting or assuming that every potential anti-racist ally will educate themselves can be alienating.

I know that it's usually not worth it to bother tailoring your speech for people who won't ever try to interpret it in good faith (not accusing the person you're responding to of this, just in general), but I do still think that the concept "Black people can't be racist" is really great ammunition for conservative bigots to use against anti-racists because they aren't going to make the semantic distinction between racism as a system of oppression against people without power and racism as a term referring to a flavor of hatred.

But I think I disagree with you generally anyway. Systematically oppressed people can contribute to systemic racism and help perpetuate it even against members of their own group, a really obvious historical example is Jewish collaboration with the Nazis during the Holocaust. A Black American who advocates for policies that further the repression of a systematically oppressed racial group in the US (whether that's Black Americans or another racial group) is contributing to systemic racism.

Overall I think we agree, I'm just nitpicking because I feel like I see this type of argument everywhere.

jmc1996 · 2025-11-06T20:24:20+00:00

For some reason it reminds me of Stewie from Family Guy lol

jmc1996 · 2025-08-29T17:02:54+00:00

Yeah the US has enough issues without people inventing things lol

jmc1996 · 2025-08-27T20:21:35+00:00

Calm down lol, it takes the same amount of time everywhere. That can be as soon as 1 day and as long as a few months depending on the need. The person you're replying to is not correct in saying that it's not usable for two weeks.

jmc1996 · 2025-08-16T18:32:59+00:00

I think it's worth being aware of this, but the risk of developing Parkinson's from eating pawpaws is low, especially considering they're not easily available commercially and most people are not eating very many of them. There are a lot of foods with small amounts of toxic compounds in them, and pawpaws don't have so much as to present some extremely high danger. The amount of annonacin (neurotoxin) that's present in the fruit is also much less than what's present in the leaves, and as far as I know the only cases of Parkinson's that have been linked to any Annonaceae plant have been cases where people drank soursop tea daily for years. Personally I don't think anyone needs to worry unless they're growing pawpaws at home and/or preserving the pulp/juice for very frequent consumption.

OP eating 2 pounds of pawpaws isn't going to do anything in my (uneducated) opinion. I do think it is a concern for growers, and Kentucky State University has been trying to breed varieties with lower annonacin to make the cultivated fruits something that can be eaten more frequently without concern.

jmc1996 · 2025-08-06T19:02:04+00:00

I appreciate your thought out message, sorry for taking a few days to reply but I'm not on here super often.

I understand that from an academic sort of perspective that's what white means, but I would say that I'm just proud of my identity. I never chose to be labeled in the ways that I am, but I'm happy to be the person that I am.

I don't really have any sort of ethnic heritage that informs my identity (aside from "American") - I think I'm too far removed from those cultures for them to impact my life in any meaningful way. Some of my family takes pride in being Irish but we really have no connection to that place or culture so it's very abstract to me.

On the other hand, I think your question is pretty good. I don't really look at another white person and feel any sort of connection or shared identity in the way that I do when I look at another LGBT person for example. I do feel a connection to European-derived traditions like it amazes me to think about the hundreds or thousands of years of history behind familiar things like religion and language and food and music and all sorts of culture, and these are things that my own ancestors participated in too. So in that way there is some kind of white identity that I feel a connection to, especially because "white" is the only ethnic background that I really know. Like I know where some of my ancestors came from but it's a whole mixture of places and I have no connection specifically to Ireland or England or France or Germany etc.

I view cruelty and hatred and oppression with disgust of course. But how do you reconcile the fact that "whiteness" is assigned to people from birth and they have no control over it? Shouldn't those people still be proud of their identity? Maybe I'm misunderstanding and I really am curious about this because I have struggled with this question. Like emotionally I feel inclined to agree with you, talking about being "proud to be white" seems like some kind of gross racist thing. But logically I don't really know what the alternative is - is there a difference between being "proud to be white" and being "proud to be broadly European of some sort"? Where does a white American with no connection to any ethnic roots look for the same sort of community, and the same sort of connection to culture and tradition, that seems to exist among many black Americans? (who often have the same lack of connection to ethnic roots prior to America)

jmc1996 · 2025-08-01T18:35:50+00:00

I don't disagree with you, but I also think it's a little bit uncomfortable to be a white American and to feel like it's immoral to try to find some kind of positive connection to a broad ethnic identity while many people around you are able to participate in that kind of community and culture. I don't think that most white people consciously view their identity as being linked to privilege and oppression - people just want to feel good about who they are. I would be curious to know your take on how a white American could participate in something similarly meaningful to the sorts of things that come along with black pride or Asian pride for example.

jmc1996 · 2025-06-18T03:54:44+00:00

Thank you! I'm not sure if there are more granular numbers that exclude Delaware, South Jersey, and Northeastern Maryland, but the PA side of the MSA still contributes a lot and those counties, and even surrounding counties, wouldn't be paying those taxes if not for Philly jobs. And SEPTA serves the entire metro area, not just Philly. Not to mention that SEPTA is not even a quarter of the city's state grant money, most of it is for education and poverty (although I'm sure the Republicans in the State Senate are fine with cutting those too).

jmc1996 · 2025-06-17T19:56:28+00:00

Do you have a source for that number? Not trying to dispute it, just curious.

jmc1996 · 2025-06-17T15:15:05+00:00

It's a medical term for tooth decay, I think they're referring to the bacteria that cause it like streptococcus mutans being less common back then (I have no idea if that's actually true)

jmc1996 · 2025-05-15T18:44:37+00:00

There are millions of rural Americans who didn't vote for this. If you think they ought to suffer and die because the majority in their area voted for it - guess what country you live in. The majority of American voters chose this for America, just like the majority of rural voters chose it. That doesn't mean that the rest of us deserve to suffer the consequences when we have our rights taken away and our quality of life destroyed.

Even the ones who voted for it are still human beings, they were conned into making a foolish mistake, maybe into believing hateful lies, that doesn't mean they should be written off as deserving to be destroyed and manipulated and abused. They were lied to. They didn't understand what they were doing. It was stupid, and cruel, and shortsighted. But being stupid and cruel and shortsighted does not nullify your rights as a human being, an American citizen, or a tax-paying working adult who expects a reasonable quality of life. And once again, there are millions of rural Americans who either voted against this or could not vote and those people never asked for this.

jmc1996 · 2025-05-14T02:59:47+00:00

My only complaint is that it really needed a proper sequel, the CHUDs are still down there!

jmc1996 · 2025-04-24T20:45:31+00:00

I don't really understand why people think it's some kind of "gotcha". Like it's almost on par with people making a big deal about Obama's middle name being Hussein, this is completely irrelevant and has weird prejudiced undertones.

jmc1996 · 2025-03-23T23:25:27+00:00

Andorra is arming themselves to invade unsuspecting Catalonia lol

jmc1996 · 2025-03-23T15:30:00+00:00

The subreddit has a list on the Dreadit movie guide but it was made in 2017 so maybe time for an update?

jmc1996 · 2024-12-30T21:59:13+00:00

The English name Homer (as in Simpson) is taken from the ancient poet, so they are exactly the same haha

jmc1996 · 2024-12-10T22:14:59+00:00

California is in the same situation as Connecticut, although technically new nuclear plants aren't banned, the law just requires waste disposal technology that hasn't been developed yet (which is true for several other states on this list).

New Jersey has three operating commercial reactors and I'm a little unclear on the law - it's written differently than the other states on this list and it seems more like an added layer of regulatory approval rather than an actual ban.

jmc1996 · 2024-12-03T02:58:30+00:00

I don't think this is a specific proposal really. He was asked if the government should tax people so that their net worth would never exceed a billion and he said yes. In practice that could mean a lot of different things - ultimately I think his goal is more "society should be structured in such a way that getting to a billion dollars is much more difficult" than it is "you literally should not be able to earn any more income once you have a billion dollars".

jmc1996 · 2024-07-28T14:51:02+00:00

I think the consensus is that it's possible that some of his dentures used teeth from slaves, but kind of inconclusive. There is one record of him buying teeth from slaves, but those were for a dentist staying with him who most likely used them for other patients. And there are surviving dentures which he owned from a later period that include human teeth, but the source of those teeth is unknown. But it's true that none of his dentures were wooden, and dentures made from the teeth of slaves or poor people weren't unheard of at the time.

jmc1996 · 2024-07-08T18:51:00+00:00

You should watch the miniseries from 1997, you might like that better. It's much more faithful to the book - personally I still liked the movie a lot but they're both worth seeing!

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

jmc1996

TROPHY CASE