Comment on [deleted]
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 day agoIn case you didn’t realise, I’m not disagreeing with you. We’ve found out that limiting the vote is a bad thing, since it tends to lead to further suppression of the groups limited. I’m just pointing out they’re right to be frustrated too, since democracy isn’t perfect and has its very noticeable flaws.
Also maybe Churchill isn’t the best person to be paraphrasing in this context considering how imperialistic and racist he was.
Why does it matter who’s being paraphrased? The statement stands on its own, judge it on its own merits and not who came up with it.
Comrade_Spood@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
I recognize democracy (particularly democracy as we have it) sucks, and I do recognize you aren’t disagreeing with me about how we can’t take rights away. I just don’t like the idea of using the flaws of democracy as an excuse to take rights away from people. That is and was the strategy of fascists, authoritarians, and bigots.
And I do believe being careful who we quote is important because “separating art from the artist” is a flawed and problematic rule. The only way you can separate “art” from the “artist” is by removing it from context, and that is a dangerous thing to do. For example if I wanted to make an anti-war point I wouldn’t use this quote,
“Sir, it is true that republics have often been cradled in war, but more often they have met with a grave in that cradle. Peace is the interest, the policy, the nature of a popular Government. War may bring benefits to a few, but privation and loss are the lot of the many. An appeal to arms should be the last resort, and only by national rights or national honor can it be justified.”
That is because this is a quote from Jefferson Davis. In the end my point is its probably not the right move to use a quote from a racist (Churchill) in response to a comment about how voter restriction is used by racists and bigots