The racists during the time of slavery and Jim Crow made no attempt to deny their racism. The large majority of Republicans, including Trump, denounce racism.

The news will find every schmuck with a confederate flag and put them on the TV, but that doesn't explain why a Republican majority Senate passed criminal justice reform and Trump signed it.

> Statistically you’d expect half of people to be dumber than average.

The implication being that one major political party constitutes the entire lower half of the distribution?

As a long-time Black Sabbath fan, the RNC's actions in recent days remind me of the lyrics of this song: https://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/black+sabbath/too+late_2001932...

EDIT: It occurs to me that the DNC has done this _to an extent_ with people of colour. However I do believe there is a qualitative difference. Think Bolsonaro vs Ardern.

This seems to be common when you take the conservative "side" even if it's not really a partisan position you take, simply disagreeing with implications that the entire right are dumb racists.

I do agree that downvoting (especially on political threads) is not working very well.

I don't even want to be doing this. Trump supports coal. Ajit Pai. He's a pathological liar. Trump sucks.

But a lot of the things he gets wrong actually help him in swing states. There is a lot of coal in Pennsylvania. So lazy opponents can't easily use those things to attack him because it would only get him more votes in places that matter.

And then we end up in a situation where the majority of people hate Trump for reasons that are actually lies, because the truth translates inconveniently to the electoral map and too many people care more about winning no matter the cost.

downvotes are the voice of the unheard.

> This seems to be common when you take the conservative "side" even if it's not really a partisan position you take, simply disagreeing with implications that the entire right are dumb racists.

its common on both sides because its part of the human condition. However hn is one of the few places on the internet where it is even possible to achieve this, despite the downvotes.

edit: look I know it's bad form on here to complain about being downvoted, but I was asking an honest question. Chill, people.

The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Delegates disputed whether and how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population, as this number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people...

In the US Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [italics added].[2]

> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Is the complaint that we haven’t erased the slavery related stuff from the record?

What has this got to do with people being racist now?

A Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.

Civil Rights Acts were also passed in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, and 1991.

But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism.

Systemic racism is rampant in every country I have lived in, the US included.

But you are changing the subject.

The question is about why it matters that it was once part of the constitution if it is no longer?

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

> Our (non-higher) education system in the US is nothing to be proud of and wildly inconsistent at best.

I guess I am conflating the history of slavery in the US with racism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States

At the time of writing the constitution, slavery was expressly racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Str...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strik...

The Jamestown craftsmen's strike of 1619 took place in the settlement of Jamestown in the Virginia colony.[1] It was the first documented strike in North America.[2] Skilled craftsmen were sent by the Virginia Company to Jamestown to produce pitch, tar, and turpentine used for shipbuilding.[3] When the colony held its first election in 1619, many settlers were not allowed to vote on the grounds that they were not of English descent, and they went on strike.[2] Due to the importance of the skilled workers in producing valuable naval stores for the colony, company leaders bowed to labor pressure and gave full voting rights to continental workers.[1]

I wonder if you could tell us, GP, which states wanted that number to be one and which wanted it to be zero?

Of course slaves weren’t allowed to vote, and 3/5ths meant that the South would get more representation as recognition of the economic strength they were bringing to the union.

It’s not like the Northern vs Southern states were arguing about whether a slave’s vote was worth 0, 3/5, or 1. This was about ascribing more (or less) power to slave owners.

The south wanted 1, the north wanted 0.

The 3/5 compromise was one of the forces that eventually brought about the end of slavery. It didn’t increase the south’s representation, it decreased it.

What I’m saying is that it “increased” the representation versus 0. Which is equivalent to your formulation that it “decreased” the representation from 1. In other words, 3/5 is more than zero and less than 1. No disagreement here.

My point is that it wasn’t about giving rights to black people, it was an argument about how much representation slave owners would have.

There are plenty of brilliant people who hold conservative values. Their idea of "success" may not follow the path of others who have moved from their hometown to a coast working in IT. Or the path of those who were "enlightened" with advanced degrees where the sophisticated choice is obviously to be a democrat. It's different strokes for different folks, and there are many ways to live in the United States.

A vote for Trump isn't necessarily a vote for Trump - It can be a vote for "Not Democrat." Whether or not you believe that voting "Not Democrat" is appropriate, it's a far reach to say that all, or most, of those people, are idiots with racist views. This approach discounts legitimate differences that should be open to debate and should be discussed. We can't expect the United States to last or be successful if we assume everyone in the middle of the country is an uncultured idiot who should be censored. Or assume that those who don't share the same views must be racists who just can't be reasoned with.

If Democrats somehow lost control of the primary to a less ideal celebrity candidate (and this is possible: https://www.london.edu/think/why-most-elections-are-ineffici...), there would be many democrats who choose to vote for that person because it is "Not Republican." It wouldn't matter who is on the ticket as long as it is "Not Republican" because a republican choice would be dumb, racist, and unsophisticated.

I grew up in the rust belt, I've lived in the most diverse city in the country (Houston, TX), and I've lived in Cambridge, MA. People are largely the same all over the country - they care about being left alone with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How they define those things differs (e.g., is a fetus "alive"?), but as long as people have those rights protected, then it's all good.

But we need laws where these rights come into conflict: if someone's pursuit of happiness involves owning slaves, this is in direct conflict with another's right to life and liberty. And they are ordered in importance - life > liberty > pursuit of happiness. So obviously, slavery should be outlawed. But other things aren't that clear. Federal legislation doesn't impact everyone evenly, and those who are impacted should have a voice. Assuming every "Not Democrat" (or "Not Republican" or "Not X") voice is a racist, dumb person who should be silenced or ignored is a fast path to division and the collapse of a functioning Democracy.

I don't love labels, but I don't think "conservatives" are simply any of those things.

This isn't an original thought, but I think they are mostly afraid of losing their community if they change their mind.

Fear of disconnection is innate and biological. When my trump supporting friends say "I believe it" to somebody suggesting that the Capitol Hill rioters were antifa pretending to be trump supporters, their lack of interest in challenging their own beliefs stems from the risk incurred with disagreeing with their friends and loved ones.

This effect is so strong that our brains give hits of dopamine whenever our beliefs are confirmed. We are not weird to change our minds.

So no. "Conservatives" aren't dumb. Just like the rest of us, they biologically afraid of social disconnection. And all that shouting across the isle makes it harder for them to see "progressives" accepting them.

Republican candidates are more likely to vote on issues I care about in a way that aligns with my values. That alignment is far from perfect, but it's a lot better than it would be with a Democrat, especially a progressive Democrat.

That's why I typically vote Republican, sometimes begrudgingly. Has nothing to do with belonging to a community. In fact, the communities I am a part of rarely discuss politics. We discuss values that inform our politics, but the politics themselves are secondary.

I have absolutely no fear of social disconnection due to my political views. If I was to suddenly start voting democratic, no one in my closest circles would even need to know.

And I care nothing about whether progressives accept me. I simply have very different values and don't believe where they want our culture and country to move is healthy. So, I don't support them in elections. How they feel about me is irrelevant.

1. What are important issues for you that republicans vote the right way on?

2. What are the top issues for you that republicans vote the wrong way on?

Women should not have to walk into a rest stop restroom at night during a road trip, see a man, and then think about whether or not he should be there. And a man should not have the right to be there because he "identifies" as a woman when he really doesn't and is just a pervert in a rest stop bathroom. But with a new law, it then has to go through the court to prove whether he had the right to be there. The damage is done way before that day shows up.

The polarization and simplification meant that democrats couldn't vote against this because it became associated with transphobia. A vote to keep separate bathrooms would mean being canceled and losing their seat. The republicans were villainized, but they have a fairly decent point. Obviously, no one should feel uncomfortable using the restroom, but what unintended consequences come with the law? You can say perverts in bathrooms is an edge case, but I'd argue a trans person being denied a restroom is also an edge case.

Starbucks arguably came up with the best answer with gender-indifferent restrooms that are single occupancy, but this isn't always scalable. There are single occupancy family restrooms in many places, so if someone truly feels unsafe to use a restroom, they could use those. These were options that were put into place without laws.

It's not "right or wrong" or "black and white" on nearly any issue we face today. It's complex, and federal laws, given they impact 330 million Americans, have more unintended consequences than laws enacted at the local or state level. And that's what the republican, conservative party wants - less "big laws" with fewer unintended consequences in favor of state laws that allow people to govern themselves at the local level. It's also why any vote to undermine a State's right to certify its election results flies in the face of conservatism.

1. Abortion is simply the legally sanctioned killing of helpless human beings. I know _many_ single issue voters who begrudgingly voted for trump because of this.

2. Climate change denialism is pretty much anti common sense. Anyone who completely ignores the issue stinks of corruption.

A person can be a staunch supporter of women's rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness but draw the line at a woman's right to end another's life. The "all-or-nothing" approach pushes people into one of two camps that each holds extreme opposing views, and it's happening across the different issues we face today.

But people become who they hang around. So if they are in a vacuum and they only hear that the election was stolen, anything else is fake news, and the president is telling them this, they may seriously believe that democracy is under siege.

Amp it up with technology echo chambers and reinforcing behaviors and you wind up with extreme situations where a group of people storms the capitol.

It's when people don't believe they can end up with similarly distorted views on a topic that they are susceptible to this themselves. This is along the lines of the Lucifer Effect.