bintananth
behind a desk
@ParadiseLost thinks the test should be harder even when most Americans probabaly can't name the first Treasury Secertay despite the fact that they're looking at an engraving of his portrait when they see a ten dollar bill.
Debate on the U.S.'s long term strategic and technological goals in an increasingly multi-polar world.
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I tried taking it as well and I agree, got 95% (And I'd hold that question was odd, it was about why people crossed the ocean to the US and I felt there was no one correct answer) and breezed through all the other questions without even having to hesitate. This is, like, second-grade social studies material.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
I'm perfectly fine stripping people of citizenship for that let alone barring new immigrants. 90% of our domestic problems come from the snowball effect of ignorance about our history, our system of government, our culture. Which I know is a radically extreme point of view that will never be implemented. But hey, extreme problems, extreme solutions.
Edit: Man, it's probably a good thing I never entered politics at a professional level. No one would ever vote for me, I think.
My two missed questions were from misreading the questions
bintananth
behind a desk
Can you tell me why a whole bunch of places in the US are named after the French guy named Gilbert du Mortier who helped write Le Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789?I'm perfectly fine stripping people of citizenship for that let alone barring new immigrants. 90% of our domestic problems come from the snowball effect of ignorance about our history, our system of government, our culture. Which I know is a radically extreme point of view that will never be implemented. But hey, extreme problems, extreme solutions.
Edit: Man, it's probably a good thing I never entered politics at a professional level. No one would ever vote for me, I think.
I'll give you a clue: La Fayette
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Any number of reasons. Fighter in the Revolution, friend of Jefferson (nepotism), the document itself is a philosophical basis (one of many) for our system of government.
Edit: typo fix
Last edited:
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
The only reason most Americans would have trouble with your question is because you left off half his name, specifically the half he was called by in the US. La Fayette isn't a clue, it's literally what Americans know him as.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
It's also Motier, not Mortier. If you want to be clever, at least get it right.
Nor would I call it unlikely to be implemented. I'd be amazed if something like this didn't become the norm (again) within a hundred years. Throughout history, citizenship has been a privilege. In bad circumstances, a privilege based on poor qualifiers, such as the vagaries of birth. Under wise governance, a privilege based on merit. This last situation tends to produce stable and affluent societies, whose only real weakness is victory disease. They become so successful that they grow complacent, which usually involves "luxury problems" like calls for universal suffrage. This then leads to idiots getting a say in politics (often as useful voting cattle for the wicked), and that in turn leads to decline and decay.
Which is where we are now. Nor have we yet seen the worst of it. (As I have outlined in post #9 of this thread.)
Historically considered, this proposition isn't extreme, but in fact quintessentially moderate. Practically every society that has ever existed (including the USA for most of its history) has generally imposed more stringent qualifications than you suggest here.
Nor would I call it unlikely to be implemented. I'd be amazed if something like this didn't become the norm (again) within a hundred years. Throughout history, citizenship has been a privilege. In bad circumstances, a privilege based on poor qualifiers, such as the vagaries of birth. Under wise governance, a privilege based on merit. This last situation tends to produce stable and affluent societies, whose only real weakness is victory disease. They become so successful that they grow complacent, which usually involves "luxury problems" like calls for universal suffrage. This then leads to idiots getting a say in politics (often as useful voting cattle for the wicked), and that in turn leads to decline and decay.
Which is where we are now. Nor have we yet seen the worst of it. (As I have outlined in post #9 of this thread.)
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I don't really know how else it could be taken. If you ask people what they know about the Apostle Saul in the bible a lot are going to scratch their heads because most of the bible calls him Paul and he only uses the name Saul in, like, three chapters. That doesn't mean these people don't know who that Apostle was.
I mean, heck, even the writeup for him as a superhero in Miraculous Ladybug mentions everybody knows him as Lafayette upfront, it's that critical to understanding who the guy was.
Gilbert du Motier, Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de La Fayette, Marquis de Lafayette, commonly known as simply Lafayette, was a French aristocrat and military officer.
I didn't even add the boldface emphasis, they did that themselves because emphasizing that everybody called him Lafayette is that important.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
I mean, fair enough? I haven't interacted with him enough (on the site) to get a read of whether he'd use scumbag tactics or not so I generally give him benefit of the doubt.
bintananth
behind a desk
It was a typo, not a gotcha.
Trying to eliminate birthright citizenship completely is fucking dumb, as is trying to require every person born on US soil to take the citizenship test.
We need to clamp down on illegal immigration and birth tourism, not try to screw people already here because they aren't civics nerds or history buffs.
We need to clamp down on illegal immigration and birth tourism, not try to screw people already here because they aren't civics nerds or history buffs.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
The test is pretty much entirely covered by taking basic social studies in grade school, normally a required course for several years anyway. Any birthright citizen who makes it far enough to get a high school diploma has covered that citizenship test dozens of times over. Anybody who can't probably has some learning disabilities in the first place and there's no reason to strip people of citizenship for that.
True, but how many people at that age actually listen to it seriously, instead of letting thier eyes glaze over as the teacher drones on.
And your point about people with learning disabilities is absolutely legit.
Though I get the feeling from some who push it that they'd be fine denying citizenship to people with learning disabilities. After all, if they aren't citizens, then the ADA is effectively moot, and they no longer have to see any money spent to help them.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
I did mention that I know I hold an extremely radical position that has not a chance in hell of being implemented. Also, it's not like I don't also support putting in place systems to encourage people to regain their citizenship easily afterward. High bar of entry, easy maintenance. But it's crucial to implement that maintenance system.
Edit:
Huh. That's a pretty uncharitable position to hold, I'm sorta insulted now. I don't support that, by the way. I'd (probably) just not require that they be tested at all and instead have a system of sponsorship where the person has reduced responsibilities with respect to civic participation and a commensurate reduction their political power as a class.
bintananth
behind a desk
The ADA is pretty much why public buildings in the US are accessable to wheelchair bound veterans who've lost limbs.
That spacious gas station restroom much larger than the half-bath with a sink, mirror, and toilet in your home is probably about as small as an architect can get away with while still meeting code.
ParadiseLost
Well-known member
If someone went their whole life 6-17 without ever caring about social studies and history, and chose to simply ignore their education in those areas, they have shown themselves not psychologically mature enough to have voting rights yet.
So now you just want to reduce the franchise of people with learning disabilities, so much better.
How about we deal with illegal immigration by actually controlling our borders, dealing with the corpo's who help keep it going, and the cartels who make it happen. You know, instead of trying to strip rights and citizenship from people who have nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
You know your system will never happen, and continue to show why it will never be allowed to happen.
How about a hearty fuck you for trying to strip rights from people who have done nothing wrong.
ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Question: are you okay with 9 year olds voting?
If no, why should people with the same level of political and historical education as a 9 year old be allowed to vote?