If the process in this Tennessee county is as described in the article, it's not unfair. Playing fuck around with voter registrations that have no issues is something else entirely.
I said I was old; I didn't say I was sensitive. I just have my finger on the pulse of the aged.
And don't get me wrong, there's definitely a whole lot of active and open malice towards trans people. It's a good idea to consider these kind things with suspicion first, because your safety may be in question. Even with this comparatively benign incident, there's a safety aspect: if a trans person answers truthfully, well, that's on record somewhere now, isn't it? Who has or will gain access to that information, and what might they do with it?
Be careful. Make the decisions that keep you the safest. Don't burn up all your mental effort on plain outrage. You will need it for action.
Most of those purged were cut from the rolls in March, before anyone knew a special election was coming.
They were cut from the rolls after the Davidson County Election Commission sent letters to voters more than two years ago, that were returned as undeliverable.
People whose letters were returned were purged after they did not vote in two consecutive November elections.
"We don't purge anyone 90 days before an election," Roberts said.
He said people purged may have moved or died.
Roberts said if someone was purged, and they come to vote in the primary election they can re-register to vote for the general election, which is on December 2.
You're not wrong. That's the hamfisted part. Among the older generations, asking "if you fuck, can a creampie result in a baby?" is more offensive than "when you were born, what parts did you have?" because the latter keeps the jizz further away.
People, on the whole, will choose the easiest path.
People are also really bad at estimating risk, usually overestimating short term risks and underestimating long term risks.
So what happens is that people choose what they estimate to be the easiest path, based on their faulty ideas about what the short and long term risks are.
Which means that in order for real change to happen - by whatever means - people have to perceive that the immediate risk of change is lower than the future risk of staying the same.
Oh do it in advance? Just do it in advance?? Why don't I strap on my Advance Helmet and squeeze down into an Advance Cannon and fire off into AdvanceLand, where Advances grow on Advancies??!
In order to succeed, you must have the capability and the will. A necessary part of capability is sufficient strength. That strength can come from numbers.
Once enough people are desperate enough, and realize that they have the numbers, and by extension the capability, the will is not far behind.
Of course there are consequences to standing up to fascism. The consequences of not standing up to fascism are worse. Unfortunately, we're all going to have to suffer those worse consequences in order for the population to choose the lesser consequences of revolution.
In the meantime, the fascists grow stronger, largely because of their forced abandonment of facts. Full circle then: Until there is no alternative to armed conflict (and maybe even then), feeding the post-truth paradigm only strengthens fascism. This will ultimately forestall revolution, and make it harder for revolution to succeed. It's already going to get worse before it gets better; being loosey-goosey on facts will only make it that much worse for that much longer.
I feel like you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say with shorthand. A previous comment I made (which you may have already seen) might help elaborate:
Violence works, otherwise there wouldn't be any. We've put up a whole system of laws and police and investigators and courts and prisons in order to provide an alternative to violence. And even then, that system is itself backed up with a real threat of violence as well as its occasional localized deployment.
Yesterday's "pep rally" where none of the military leaders dragged in had anything good to say about it suggests that there is not the overwhelming military support that Trump wants there to be. There are plenty of examples of far less powerful local forces successfully standing up to superpowers. Afghanistan is one. Wallachia is another.
When the entire federal government and many state governments have wholly abandoned the systems put together to avoid violence, and are in fact using the husks of those systems to apply violence to their opponents, we've already crossed the Rubicon.
There's a difference between a fairly accurate interpretation of someone's statement and overreaching to accomplish a political goal. I find the headline of this article to be the latter.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it out to be. "Never reading between the lines" is a strawman; nobody suggested that should be the case.
$20 of the time