I don’t think Diane Feinstein could really even comprehend anything at the end.
We should be careful about language like “can’t read,” when discussing taking away rights though. There are blind people who literally “can’t read,” but can comprehend information in an equivalent format and who’d be much more competent than someone like Feinstein.
Braille is also expensive and takes up significantly more paper. It is more time consuming to use. Compared to audiobooks, Braille is typically considered inferior and outdated in many circles. I already knew about Braille before I commented, yes. Reading should not be the bar to deny someone rights. It also was a classic racist tactic too. It’s a bad thing to advocate for (denying rights based on reading ability).
Being unable to read shouldn’t be the bar to deny someone rights. But maybe it should be considered when we’re talking about placing them in a position where they have power and influence over millions of people??
Honestly, I have no idea how you turned someone shitting on idiots into this attack on the blind.
Honestly, I have no idea how you turned someone shitting on idiots into this attack on the blind.
Lol you don’t understand how disability factors into this? Or maybe just the simple parameter declaring “if they can’t read, they aren’t fit for office,” and how such statements are ableist including against blind people? Like next you all will suggest if they can’t guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, they can’t run for office. What’s wrong, it’s “just” a basic competency test meant to advocate to deny people rights. It’s just people’s rights, who cares about that? Let’s take them all away, rights are meaningless. If you are a man, you are now the slave of every woman and you dont get to have independent thought. How about we start with those rights instead of advocating for stripping the disabled and those who can’t read of their rights. :)
Btw rights for disability were passed during the same time period as abortion rights and women’s rights - and those are actively being attacked these days as well. I don’t appreciate any speech along the lines of “if you can’t read you can’t run for office.”
The only problem is that means more lawyers in positions of power.
As a former lawyer, I think that’s a terrible idea as many of my former colleagues are basically retarded (but still cunning enough to get by the average person).
a LOT of the people most important to governing within the constitution, enforcing it, and specifically hired to protect your rights granted by it, know little, to nothing, about it
It needs to be called out just how weird it is that US Senators like this don’t understand the very document they have sworn to uphold.
The bar has been lowered so much that I wouldn’t be surpised to learn that some of them couldn’t even read.
I don’t think Diane Feinstein could really even comprehend anything at the end.
We should be careful about language like “can’t read,” when discussing taking away rights though. There are blind people who literally “can’t read,” but can comprehend information in an equivalent format and who’d be much more competent than someone like Feinstein.
Out of curiosity, what word do you use to describe the act of run fingers over brail characters to process their meaning?
We do not know exactly how many people can read Braille, but at one point it was estimated to be 10% of blind people could read Braille. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0145482X211071125?journalCode=jvba#:~:text=Another source for the 10,the United States” (p.
Braille is also expensive and takes up significantly more paper. It is more time consuming to use. Compared to audiobooks, Braille is typically considered inferior and outdated in many circles. I already knew about Braille before I commented, yes. Reading should not be the bar to deny someone rights. It also was a classic racist tactic too. It’s a bad thing to advocate for (denying rights based on reading ability).
Being unable to read shouldn’t be the bar to deny someone rights. But maybe it should be considered when we’re talking about placing them in a position where they have power and influence over millions of people??
Honestly, I have no idea how you turned someone shitting on idiots into this attack on the blind.
Lol you don’t understand how disability factors into this? Or maybe just the simple parameter declaring “if they can’t read, they aren’t fit for office,” and how such statements are ableist including against blind people? Like next you all will suggest if they can’t guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, they can’t run for office. What’s wrong, it’s “just” a basic competency test meant to advocate to deny people rights. It’s just people’s rights, who cares about that? Let’s take them all away, rights are meaningless. If you are a man, you are now the slave of every woman and you dont get to have independent thought. How about we start with those rights instead of advocating for stripping the disabled and those who can’t read of their rights. :)
Btw rights for disability were passed during the same time period as abortion rights and women’s rights - and those are actively being attacked these days as well. I don’t appreciate any speech along the lines of “if you can’t read you can’t run for office.”
At this point I’m almost for requiring at least some sort of legal degree for these positions.
The only problem is that means more lawyers in positions of power.
As a former lawyer, I think that’s a terrible idea as many of my former colleagues are basically retarded (but still cunning enough to get by the average person).
Yeah I agree. That’s why I said almost.
They should at least know about the constitution though.
a LOT of the people most important to governing within the constitution, enforcing it, and specifically hired to protect your rights granted by it, know little, to nothing, about it