Re:White House deletes tweet after Twitter adds 'context' note
by rootusrootus on Friday November 04, 2022 @06:08PM
(#33474560)
> “Suffrage” itself is simply who gets the right to vote.
No, suffrage is the right to vote. Not who. So 'repeal suffrage' simply means repealing the right to vote. It is not confusing, just absurd.
Re:White House deletes tweet after Twitter adds 'context' note
by skissane on Friday November 04, 2022 @06:32PM
(#33474880)
Is abolishing elections and replacing them by sortition (legislative juries) “absurd”? A very radical proposal, but doesn’t seem inherently “absurd” to me. And of course, under such a system, nobody has suffrage (unless one means the suffrage of jurors on a jury.)
Re:White House deletes tweet after Twitter adds 'context' note
by tomrod on Friday November 04, 2022 @07:14PM
(#33475401)
To be fair, most people have a hard time understanding the word "hypothetical" or realizing something different from the status quo.
Re:White House deletes tweet after Twitter adds 'context' note
by rootusrootus on Friday November 04, 2022 @08:12PM
(#33476037)
I like sortition myself, but yes it is absurd.
> And naturally, most have no clue that has to do with women's voting rights, and asking to repeal them.
“Women’s suffrage” is the right of women to vote. “Suffrage” itself is simply who gets the right to vote. “Repeal women’s suffrage” has a very clear meaning, “repeal suffrage” is vague and unclear what is being repealed. Women’s suffrage? Universal male suffrage? (Once upon a time, most men couldn’t vote, since they didn’t meet the property qualifications.) Abolish elections altogether? (Use sortition? Introduce a dictatorship?)
People aren’t stupid to be confused by a confusing question.