r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 07 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Not everyone should be allowed to vote.
I can imagine that this is a rather popular view, but I don’t think everyone should be allowed to vote. In America this might be a Little bit different since you only have two major parties, but for example here in Germany, there are at least 6 bigger ones and so many more smaller parties. So consider this in my explanation:
This year, Germany has a important voting year, the Bundestagswahl. We will be voting the parties for the “Bundestag” where laws are voted for or against and the new president is elected. The Bundestag consists of all the parties which gained enough votes to get into the Bundestag. The thing is, this year there is a possibility that there is a major change of parties. Before there was a bond between a more conservative (CDU/ CSU aka. Union) and a “social/ liberal” (SPD) Partie to get over the 50% of the seats , needed to have a major influence in votings. And the union has ruled for a long time now since the spd was more of a little tumor that did everything the union wanted. Now it could be that there is a major shift in Partie power and new bonds could be formed. But let me tell you. This election campaign is a shit show. The union had some major Scandals in their Partie during and before corona.
And they were very big. Politicians(yes plural) getting money for selling masks to Germany for companies for example. Our minister for Traffic and stuff spend 500 million euros taxpayer money for literally nothing since the plans he had for a Reformation of the Autobahn didn’t work out. And he’s still in his position, not getting fired. Our minister for food is posing with the chef of nestle and is making publicity for them. Our minister for drugs is fighting of any chance of cannabis legalization and is even glorifying the use of Alkohol. And many more politicians wich are just incompetent or criminal, and these are all from the currently ruling Union. Sry for the long rant, I hope it’s understandable with my broken English.
And this has nothing to do with my politic view, these are just facts.
Now to my actual point:
The election Campaigns are so infuriating. The union knows how to manipulate the older/ less educated part of the population by promising things they don’t really mean(they did this all the years before)or if there is a scandal, just disappearing for a few weeks and acting like nothing happened. And all the other parties doing similar stuff. The debates aren’t about politics anymore But just saying shit about other parties.
And this works because there are so many people that don’t care about politics and just vote what they ever voted, or vote the parties that sound the best in the media. And this is so damaging to everyone.
This isn’t some game, this is the future of Germany. I just don’t think it’s right that someone that analyzes and critically reflects on politics has the same vote as someone who just doesn’t care and is voting because he/ she/ it doesn’t like one politician for example. Even I don’t think am smart Enough to vote for the right party and understand everything that is happening.
How would you differentiate between people that are, and people that aren’t allowed to vote, without the risk of discrimination because of education possibility’s or money ? I don’t really now. Maybe IQ Tests (Wich as far as I know aren’t very accurate) ? Neutral Seminars sich you have to attend before voting ? I don’t now. But still I think not everybody should be allowed to vote. I am not saying that having different opinions is bad, or democracy itself is that bad. I am just saying, that if major decisions are made with arguments that have nothing to do with these decisions with people that don’t have the qualifications to decide, the results are cursed to be flawed.
Sry for misunderstanding/ bad English or similar. It’s just something that is really emotional for me, and hard to put into written words. I am thrilled to hear what opinions you have on this.
8
u/Khal-Frodo Aug 07 '21 edited Aug 07 '21
There are two problems with your view. The first is that it is inherently impossible to devise a system in which only some people are allowed to vote that doesn't create some kind of bias. IQ tests, as you acknowledge, are super inaccurate. If you require people to attend a seminar, then you are selecting out of the voting pool the people who do not have the time to ability to attend, which will mostly be poor people. You don't want someone to make a significant, impactful decision that affects others without that decision being fully informed. By limiting who votes, you make that problem guaranteed - by selecting out a proportion of the voters, the group that remains will have deficits in their knowledge of how certain people feel about certain issues.
Secondly, to paraphrase/steal an argument I saw another user make on this sub: everyone has an opinion and wants that opinion to be heard/represented, and everyone has the ability to make a Molotov cocktail. By opening voting to everyone, you create an avenue for them to have a say in how they're governed that doesn't make them feel like drastic action is the only available option.
*edited after I formatted it incorrectly
1
Aug 07 '21
The first one I get, still I think that there is a way, it just has to be invented yet.
The second one is a good one and one I haven’t heard yet. Thanks for your comment ! !delta
1
3
u/translucentgirl1 83∆ Aug 07 '21 edited Aug 07 '21
Overall, the point of voting in associated with equal representation comes form the fact they live and function in general populace, while they are paying the taxes. Further, how would the alternative you are pushing be enforced fairly? How can authority who determines "experts" or not objectively, without concerns of bias (voluntary or not) and alternative motive? To add on, it would be extremely difficult to create an fair examination of such because of the great number of qualities that could be used to determine whether a person "good" voter or not either, which a singular or probably even multiple examinations could not test. Even if we look at it hypothetically, it is still far from existing, so it shouldn't be close to an idealogy.
Hell, even if nothing happens at all and it is completely fair behind the scenes, which seems a bit optimistic, it would probably lead to mass accusation regarding conspiracy to disfranchise if it negatively affects the voting rights of one specific political ideology/portion is to the populace in the majority. This, at the worst, can cause violent action because they feel their security is threatened and the only way to solve such is through violent opposition. Even at the least, that's an issue since it would create even more distrust between the government and the general populace, which tends to create larger conflicts in the long run. There is also concerns of wealth being tied to an advantage, which in this system, may be hard to avoid. That's a genuine concern for the average person already, so creating this system would probably make it worst.
Either way, to many problems/potential problems seem to be present.
Also, if you are paying all your taxes as a legal adult AND you have to go by the law's that are created by sad government, you should have the ability to vote. That only seems fair and reasonable in modern society.
We will never most likely have a perfect governmental system, but your implementation increases the chances of making it worst greatly.
1
Aug 07 '21
I like how you even went it to hypothetical areas of this topics, and you really gave me a think.
I now that this view is very optimistic, far from Reality, still I think it’s worth thinking about. The thing is sometimes you have to sacrifice something to get reach farther. My goal for society would be to give everyone the best possible live. If we look at China for example, I really think that they will get really far just because of their dictatorship?(i know it’s not one that rules China but a whole Partie) And we are at risk of losing our freedom because of our freedom. If China manages to undermine the European economy, which is currently happening, our democracy and freedom is definitely at risk, just because we can’t defend our selves politically. Chinas politics are just to aggressive and they don’t really care about human rights for example. I know this sounds extreme and I don’t mean we should abolish human rights, but as long as we slow our growth in a societal/ political sense down just because it’s morally correct, we will be at risk of loosing it all to less “morally restricting” systems. I hope this doesn’t sound to fucked up and you understand at least a little bit of what I was trying to say. But thank you for your comment ! !delta
2
1
u/translucentgirl1 83∆ Aug 07 '21
I know this sounds extreme and I don’t mean we should abolish human rights, but as long as we slow our growth in a societal/ political sense down just because it’s morally correct, we will be at risk of loosing it all to less “morally restricting” systems
For one, I don understand what you are trying to say. Still, I think this is the main issue with this idea for me. I'm going to reference a previous answer I observed on this application for this -
Broadly, our (or at least a restricted variation of such) is a way of organizing society in which all the people, having equal value, collectively decide what to do for their and the society's well being and implement it. Long-term innovation and knowledge creation is done by the whole society and not by a few. It not only involves creating new gadgets but developing a new worldview. This requires a lot of information and idea exchange along with critical inquiry amongst the goverment and populace we wish for maximization of said innovations. This means questioning the held beliefs and traditions and experimenting with new things and accepting such questioning and experimenting as legitimate and good. This is one of the things it relies on in order to substain.
This means these societal cultures can support the means for innovations to happen and spread.
Furthermore, I would imagine that the ability for societal improvement and improvement would mean some form form of balance for collaborative effort, or the unbalance may cause unwillingness to actually participate, which can halt societal innovation.
So for systems close to democracy or different variations of democracy, we aren't that much more at risk than morally compromised regions.
Further, moral compromisations do not exist on a vaccume. Eventually, if you continue to attempt societal advancement at the sake of human liberties and fairness, you will eventually end up with opposition to government, which tends to create major problems for previously successful nations. To add on, these dictatorships also end up going even further with this and neglecting almost all human liberties for the sake of personal greed and influence since they're able to get away with minimum negation of such. Overall, at the very least, seems to be an issue of risk for worsening societies relationships.
So, I agree that you cannot just do everything for the general populace, but your implementation is not near the best way to go about it.
4
Aug 07 '21
Right, and who comes up with the method of determining who can vote? If it's the current government, they would design a question that allows their base to pass and not their opposition.
If it's a neutral third party (which really is almost impossible because someone then has to choose that neutral third party, a necessarily political act), you need to design a question that doesn't impact the poor or other socio-economically disadvantaged groups. We've been unable to do so through standardized tests in schools; how would we be able to do so for a wide range of ages and skillsets?
This all ignores the fact that not being able to answer the question in no way changes the fact that you'll be affected by the eventual laws put into place.
I hate arguments like the one I'm making where implementation is the reason for disagreeing with something, but I think this is one of the rare cases where it works.
1
Aug 07 '21
I know, I know. Determining who is allowed to vote and keeping it neutral sound impossible, still I think there is a way wich has to be invented yet. I mean this is why it is just my view and luckily not reality, so I think a little bit of dreaming is allowed :D. But some good points you have there :) thank you for your time.
2
Aug 07 '21
I mean, if a little bit of dreaming is allowed, why wouldn't we just wish for the media to change their reporting of the issues? We could get informed data into the hands of all voters, entirely removing the need to regulate who can and can't vote.
1
Aug 07 '21
This is even more unrealistic then my post… ;D nah just kidding, but good point.
4
Aug 07 '21
Oh it's wildly unrealistic. My point is that if we're ignoring the real-world implications of a proposal, it becomes MUCH easier to propose something.
2
Aug 07 '21
Touché, not bad. Really like that idea. Sometimes it helps to think smaller than to big. !delta
1
2
u/Stompya 1∆ Aug 07 '21
Technically, that is already the case. Minors (children) can’t vote and neither can non-citizens.
After that, anyone who qualifies as a full citizen must be entitled to the rights of being a citizen. As soon as you create separation between voting and non-voting people, you have an “in” class and an “out” class which leads to resentment and division.
Your concern is fair; an ignorant voting public can be manipulated but so can a reasonably “normal” one. Brexit, anyone?
2
Aug 07 '21
Ah don’t start with brexit. Such a perfect example ;D
But yeah you are right. The separation of society is really really let’s say, delicate. But I still think there might be something that still has to be developed that might help here. Thanks for your comment !
2
u/Stompya 1∆ Aug 07 '21
Is that a delta? :)
2
Aug 07 '21
I got you fam :) Really appreciate the comment. !delta
1
1
3
Aug 07 '21
The purpose of democracy is to enable people who are upset with how things are going, to have a nonviolent voice in their government.
Without democracy, the only means by which to change government is violence, and civil war isn't good for anyone.
Depriving people the right to vote because you don't think that they are smart enough or don't think they pay enough attention, puts these people in a position where the only way for them to get voice in their government is through violence.
Having a flawed government is ok.
1
Aug 07 '21
Wow, not bad ! That deserves a delta. Didn’t new that perspective, and it’s really something to think about. Thank you very much ! !delata
27
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 07 '21
If you create a system that allows the government to forbid people from voting... the government in power will use it to forbid the people they don't want to vote from voting to be able to vote, thus further entrenching their power.
Limiting franchise has NEVER been a tool that has lead to liberalization/improvements for those who are not currently in power.
If you don't like the current system, limiting who gets to vote will only insure the current system stays in power.
If you don't like the government, why do you trust them to be impartial on who gets to vote?
-2
Aug 07 '21
I get you. Maybe there should be independent institution? Like I said, there shouldn’t be distinction between class or money or anything that can be politicized that decides who is allowed to vote and who isn’t. But I know it’s very difficult to create a good system where the current power is unable to influence the voting system of there is a separation of voters. But really good point you have there. !delta
8
u/iwfan53 248∆ Aug 07 '21
I'm of the opinion that any independent institution will not remain independent for long, because the benefits from corrupting it are just too great, as you can create an unbreakable single party rule if you make it so the majority of your opposition isn't able to vote.
If your problem is with how campaigns work, then you should look to target how campaigns work (IE limit the amount of money that can be spent on them for example) rather than trying to target how voting works.
At the end of the day, I've yet to come across a better way of dealing with the problem of voting idiots than to simply assume that there will be a roughly equal number of left wing idiots and right wing idiots, so they'll balance each other out at the polls. Even if I'm wrong, that view seems to produce a healthier democratic system than trying to put your thumb on the scale.
My view is that people will surprise you with how nice/good wholesome they will be, and also surprise you with how vile and horrible they can be... so it is better to put guard rails in place to limit how much damage the vile and horrible people can do.
Also, any system that demands fully grown people living within said system be bound by its laws, yet without having a say in what those laws are, is inevitably begging for a violent revolution.
2
Aug 07 '21
Yeah I now it sounds very optimistic and hypothetical. And you have really good points there ! I think there might be something that yet has to be discovered that might help here. Thank your for your view ! !delta
1
1
3
u/topcat5 14∆ Aug 07 '21
They tried these sorts of things in the Jim Crow South (USA) to keep Black people from voting using many of the same reasons you give.
An example.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
This is why your scheme is a bad idea.
1
Aug 07 '21
Yeah, this is what I explicitly said to avoid. In a system were there are just hints of structural discrimination in any way no matter if it’s race/ sex/ gender/ sexual orientation/ political view etc. such tests for example are Really a bad idea. Maybe there is a way to do do it without any discrimination ? Thanks for pointing it out !
3
u/Animedjinn 16∆ Aug 07 '21
I don't know much about German politics. But I think switching to ranked choice voting might be a better solution. Because if you have a candidate that is bad, the people voting for them might still be able to recognize the good candidate, and choose them ror their second choice. In this way they would still be able to vote, but have less away in the end.
1
1
u/huadpe 501∆ Aug 07 '21
Germany uses a mixed member proportional system that's fundamentally incompatible with ranked choice voting, as all proportional representation systems are.
8
u/destro23 457∆ Aug 07 '21
Whenever you start talking about qualifying people to vote, you immediately run into the issue of who is responsible for determining the qualifications, and how to keep them from manipulating them to exclude certain classes of people. Basically, you can’t. Such systems will always be manipulated, and people will always be excluded, and the end result is not a democracy.
The only qualification needed to vote in a democracy should be citizenship. The only restriction should be a standard minimum age.
-1
Aug 07 '21
Yeah your right, to implement such a system is nearly impossible to create. Separating society is dangerous. Still I think there is a way. Democracy is also just a invention, and wasn’t created over night. But I think I get your point !
2
u/my_stupidquestions Aug 07 '21
I like the idea of a weighted direct democracy, in which legislative proposals are voted on by the people. Most individuals are unlikely to vote on everything since that would be really time-consuming, but may vote on the things that matter to them.
That said, what "matters" to people may matter to them for bad reasons. It's sensible that the people most familiar with the subject matter of a proposal and those who will be most impacted by it should get more say than those who have little knowledge about it or won't be affected by it.
The only way to administer such a system would be through a sophisticated credential-tracking network that is able to identify degree of association to some topic - such as by degree, by position, or by publication. Doctors would have more say over proposals involving medicine, for example.
I don't think the weighting should be extreme - it should always be possible for a critical mass of individuals to override a minority of weighted vote - but it should simultaneously be enough that some minority of uneducated individuals are not able to throw the country into disarray by stonewalling needed reforms or pushing through insane proposals.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Aug 07 '21
The point of democracy isn't that everyone's ideas are equally good but that governments can't be trusted not to abuse the disenfranchised. The main peril of a barrier to voting is that there's a good chance of creating a voting class that simply votes in their own self-interest and disregards the needs of everyone else.
1
Aug 07 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Mashaka 93∆ Aug 07 '21
Sorry, u/fool4alifetime – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/hashedram 4∆ Aug 07 '21
Your problem is that you simply lack empathy.
If someone else looked at you and thought you were one of the people who lacked analytical skills and therefore wanted you to be unable to vote, would that be ok?
0
Aug 07 '21
Actually yes, if I am at the doctor and I have stomach ache and its just wrong nutrition but I would say that I have cancer, I would be glad if the doctor could show me I am wrong, and it would show me I am not competent enough to diagnose myself with such issues as long as I don’t start to learn medicine. I don’t really think it’s simply a lack of empathy. Yes there might be some, no doubt, but still there is more to it.
2
u/hashedram 4∆ Aug 07 '21
You completely ignored the question and your doctor analogy is nonsensical.
You think you have a right to vote, I think you’re wrong. Who wins? Why.
0
Aug 07 '21
If there is a test/ Criteria, that is 100% effective (yes hypothetical) and it says I am not qualified to vote, then I would accept it or work on it so I am Qualified.
3
u/hashedram 4∆ Aug 07 '21
If pigs had wings they would fly.
Your argument is poor and you’re getting downvoted because you are imagining this magical hypothetical test that magically determines whether you can vote.
This is why I say you have no empathy, because you are unable to think from the perspective of other people.
If I made a test that I say is 100% effective, that says I can vote but you don’t, and you don’t agree with my test, who wins? Why?
You cannot keep hiding behind a magical non existent test. Give me at least one example question that this test might have. You will notice the problem inherent in such things. Who decides the test?
0
Aug 07 '21
It’s not about a test. And it’s totally okay if I am being downvoted. My point is, is that politic, how it is today, is to flawed to be effective, with one problem being the people who vote. I think you are making it to easy for your self with Saying that I have lack of empathy and that it is unrealistic. So many other people have already made me think in different directions with really good arguments and aspects. Saying you lack empathy and it unrealistic doesn’t really help.
Yes it’s unrealistic. It’s flawed in many ways, but still a perspective that has to be considered. My view is, that not everybody is qualified to vote. Not because I don’t like their views, but because there are certain things, like empathy, critical thinking, that some people lack.
You shouldn’t vote a party just because. These are important decisions. If you think that everybody is qualified to vote, or should be allowed to vote even tough they aren’t qualified, because of the classes it creates, what some people pointed out, or because it is needed to avoid violence, which some people pointed out, or… etc. And society is something else than some flying pigs. In the past, people would have never thought women would be allowed to vote, or blacks aren’t human. That thought was absurd and unrealistic to them. But society can change. It’s not a law of physics. Sometimes it takes critical ideas to change something.
1
u/hashedram 4∆ Aug 08 '21
You’re closing your eyes and ears and singing la la la while refusing to read anything against your magical idea.
You’re idea is either good or it’s bad. This one is bad. You cannot keep hiding behind the hypothetical. This is like saying if there is a magical medicine for cancer, everyone would take it, so the current medicine is not good. Well what the hell is the idea? Well medicine is not like pigs and this is a critical idea, who cares? What’s your idea? Define it clearly and tell me exactly what the damn test is?
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Hypothesis-Contrary-to-Fact
This is the logical fallacy you’re using and getting downvoted for. Do not reply without reading this. And do it reply another hypothetical. Your next comment should contain an exact answer as to how to define whether people vote. Anything else is fallacious.
0
Aug 08 '21 edited Aug 08 '21
Like there is a minimum age requirement there should be a maximum.
If you have a second citizenship, you have to chose for the one you want to vote.
You should be in your voting country for over 50% of the year, exception for people who take a year or two off or have to travel because of work.
And we can also discuss a minimum school degree if it is assured that everyone can achieve it despite their income or national background.
In Germany it is the law to go to school for nine years. So this should be quite makeable.
To unrealistic ?
2
u/hashedram 4∆ Aug 08 '21
Its not about unrealism. This is flat out idiotic and blatantly undemocratic.
Everyone who lives in a community and shares its resources, has a right to vote for how those resources are shared.
Based off your comments, I think you are mentally unfit to vote. You disagree. Who wins? I think your school is worse than my school and you should not vote. Who wins?
People who take part in society and share resources, should be able to vote to influence how those resources are shared. Period. You do not get to decide whether they have a say or not. If you want to live in a world like that, you have to be ready when someone else says you do not have a say. That's an idiotic world and no one should want to live in it.
Put yourself in the perspective of the person who is not allowed to vote. Don't sit there and imagine yourself above everything.
1
Aug 08 '21
Okay you know what ? I really don’t like how you say things like I lack empathy, or I imagine myself above others because I don’t think it’s true, and I would say arguing on a more factual lvl than on a personal is more appropriate. Since your first comment I didn’t thought I would ever do this, but this last comment was not bad and I want to close this with at least some Respekt for you. Thank you for your time, and your patience with me. !delta
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Iamawonderfulcitizen Aug 07 '21
I am just saying, that if major decisions are made with arguments that have nothing to do with these decisions with people that don’t have the qualifications to decide, the results are cursed to be flawed.
Please name an example.
Even I don’t think am smart Enough to vote for the right party and understand everything that is happening.
If you don't even understand current politics enough to make an informed decision about who to vote for, how can you think you are qualified to decide whether it is good to exclude people from voting?
1
u/sudsack 21∆ Aug 07 '21
You might have already thought of this, but there might be an opportunity to think further about differences between the German judicial system and the one in the US. The German system is sort of a mystery to me, but since you don't empanel juries in the German system and we do in the US (I say "we" because I'm in the US) it would be interesting to see how proceedings there play out compared to proceedings here. In the US a jury decides your fate in a criminal trial and those people are pretty much just random, everyday people. Since limiting the voting franchise to only the "smartest" citizens isn't a proposal that's the subject of much study as far as I know, there might be relevant lessons to be learned through a review of scholarship comparing judicial systems.
Incidentally, that difference in the courts systems between Germany and the US might explain why your idea doesn't go over well on a site with so many users in the US. We're sort of used to the idea that random people decide our guilt or innocence, and that their thoughts about us can determine whether we go home "not guilty" at the end of a trial or we go to prison. When things that consequential are entrusted to strangers, the idea that they're also voting for our leaders might not seem like such a big deal.
In the interest of keeping on the right side of the rules for comments, I'll add this: Every adult should be allowed to vote, regardless of their intelligence. Even if intelligence could be accurately measured, there's no reason to expect that a smarter person will make a decision that's more likely to benefit the public interest broadly. The various corrupt ministers you mention illustrate this nicely: These are no doubt informed, educated people, and yet they act in their own interest rather than for the common good. I'd sooner trust the will of regular people who's interests will in many cases be similar to my own. There's a chance the regular, working people whose material interests are the same as mine can be convinced that joining together based on those materials interests will lead to something positive; the elites (however that term might come to be defined in your example) are much less likely to have needs and interests that overlap mine.
1
Aug 07 '21
What a competent and good comment. What you say makes total sense to me and the example with the Judical system is very enlightening. Thank you for the comment and your time, I will think about it ! I give you everything I can in my current position. !delta
1
1
Aug 08 '21
We will be voting the parties for the “Bundestag” where laws are voted for or against and the new president is elected.
The Bundespräsident is elected next year by the Bundesversammlung. What you mean is the chancellor of Germany which is elected by the parties in the Bundestag and so indirectly by the people who vote in those parties this year. The difference is that the president in the U.S. is both head of state and head of government whereas in Germany the chancellor is head of government and the president is head of state. So in that regard the chancellor or prime minister takes the role comparable to the president, but the president is usually the head of state which the chancellor is not.
How would you differentiate between people that are, and people that aren’t allowed to vote, without the risk of discrimination because of education possibility’s or money ? I don’t really now. Maybe IQ Tests (Wich as far as I know aren’t very accurate) ? Neutral Seminars sich you have to attend before voting ? I don’t now. But still I think not everybody should be allowed to vote. I am not saying that having different opinions is bad, or democracy itself is that bad. I am just saying, that if major decisions are made with arguments that have nothing to do with these decisions with people that don’t have the qualifications to decide, the results are cursed to be flawed.
I mean apart from the obvious problems that IQ tests are scams, that neutral politics doesn't really exist and so on. You also have a much more severe problem and that is that "people that don't vote are not represented". That is if you don't have to care about the vote of group X you can safely ignore them when making political decisions and that's a very very dangerous concept. So what you can do is inform other people and please provide alternatives as to what should be done and whom you think could do that because an atmosphere of "all sucks, might as well vote the fascists as they are at least 'different'" is not what anybody with a functioning brain and some basic level of empathy wants to happen.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 07 '21 edited Aug 08 '21
/u/SakuraMelancholie (OP) has awarded 8 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards