Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 225 posts

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#151

Post by derefr »

mikestew wrote: post #146
xupybd wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest I'd never heard about voter literacy tests. I'm not in the states so the context is not something I'm aware of. I know it creates more problems than it solves, I just wish people would take the time and effort to have an informed opinion before voting. Even if that informed opinion is opposed to mine. To split hairs you don't have to be literate to name a policy.

I know it creates more problems than it solves It also strikes at the heart of what "citizen" means. See, here I thought just being a "citizen" was good enough to have the privilege to vote. But now I have to know how to read. Or name a policy. Or come up with the money to pay the poll tax. Or be a man. Or agree with you . No, the only requirement (in the U. S.) is to be a citizen and to be registered on the list of…

Why can't we just... force everyone to attain this "privilege", then?

Like, you've already got a requirement in the US that everyone attend (public or private or home) school until they're ~16, right? So, what's wrong with requiring a civics curriculum as part of that, and then tying voting rights to a test of that civics curriculum? If people aren't passing, then they'd be temporarily disenfranchised, yes, but that'd be the government's fault/failing, not their own—and it would be up to the government to hunt them down and keep educating them until they do pass. Dragging people back (with compensation for their time) to get them qualified. Sort of like... jury duty.

Admittedly, that sounds a bit dystopian. Don't imagine cops showing up at your doorstep; just imagine it like an unpaid parking ticket. Can't get your driver's license renewed until you re-take the course; get frequent calls hounding you; etc.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#152

Post by stuaxo »

ue_ wrote: post #120
qsymmachus wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A creepily common idea among certain libertarians. "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron." – the inimitable Peter Thiel

I agree that "capitalist democracy" is an oxymoron, but I come from the exact opposite side from Thiel; I believe that a democracy cannot function within capitalism when politicians can be bought off, and there is no democratic control over the economy, the economy being half of the societal coin; we accept democracy in matters of politics, but not in matters of economy, the economy having just as much if not more ef…

Interesting - to be pedantic (and this is the site for it) - it makes sense - in capitalism, those with capital will have the most power, which is undemocratic.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#153

Post by dsfyu404ed »

rconti wrote: post #51
ericfrenkiel wrote: post #43

::slow clap:: It is absolutely appalling that this type of backwardness is still a reality in the 21st century. The faster we can transition to clean, renewable energy, the better for everyone in the world.

My favorite example is the South Carolina law that was finally rescinded a few years back, where bars had to serve their mixed alcoholic drinks with liquor poured from single-serving 'airline' style bottles. A colossal waste of time and resources, but the kicker was the arguments against rescinding the law-- some folks arguing that DUI rates would go through the roof and The Children (TM) would all die, and others ar…

>...and The Children (TM) would all die...

All the people from CA who chucked when they read this should consider the pot and kettle relationship.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#155

Post by rhcom2 »

averagewall wrote: post #122
xupybd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you're right that is weird especially that both agreed, are you sure they weren't trolling you? But I do agree with voting irrationally being a problem in democracy. I just don't think it's only women that do that. I'd love it if, in order to vote, you had to name one policy position that the party you are voting for holds. I know we want everyone to vote so we can say participation is high but I'd rather only t…

There's already a self-selecting mechanism to eliminate most voters. It's called partisanship. Those people who vote for their favorite party no matter what cancel out each other's vote so they don't count. That leaves only the people who're making a decision each election that matter.

> That leaves only the people who're making a decision each election that matter.

But what those people are making their decision on could be as arbitrary as "would I like to have a beer with this person?" or "what was the last article I read before election day". There isn't any inherent virtue in it.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#156

Post by haihaibye »

ihsw2 wrote: post #33
idoh wrote: post #19

"Low oil prices have limited the government jobs that many Saudis have long relied on, and the kingdom is trying to push more citizens, including women, into gainful employment. But some working Saudi women say hiring private drivers to get them to and from work eats up much of their pay, diminishing the incentive to work." I'm guessing that this is the biggest driver - Saudi Arabia just cannot afford to not allow th…

The dual income household had an unbelievable impact on Western and Asian economies, buoying incredible growth. How the KSA handles the coming social liberalization will be interesting, Chinese women still grapple with social conservative attitudes regarding working women (ie: leftover women). It is inevitable that the people of the KSA will encounter similar difficulties.

>> buoying incredible growth

Then why not much deviation from historical trend lines:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/29/invisible-women/

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#157

Post by tynpeddler »

noobermin wrote: post #136
xupybd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you're right that is weird especially that both agreed, are you sure they weren't trolling you? But I do agree with voting irrationally being a problem in democracy. I just don't think it's only women that do that. I'd love it if, in order to vote, you had to name one policy position that the party you are voting for holds. I know we want everyone to vote so we can say participation is high but I'd rather only t…

We already had these, known as poll literacy tests. They were intended to weed out undesirable votes known to vote emotionally and irrationally. I hope the dark sarcasm isn't lost on readers of my comments.

Literacy tests are not what the person above you is talking about.

Historically, literacy tests had nothing to do with literacy, they were exclusively for racist purposes, and to subjugate 'undesireables'. They were handed out at the (almost certainly racist) poller's discretion, and the tests themselves were worded so poorly that most of the questions had no single, correct answer. They were not real tests. Comparing literacy tests to the above poster's suggestion is like comparing aspirin to cyanide because they can both be put into a pill and swallowed.

Over the past few years, we've seen numerous examples of the destruction that voters can create in democratic societies. Turkey is probably not a democracy any more, Russia definitely isn't. Brexit is probably due to a campaign that was based on out right lies. The notion that universal suffrage may not be the best system is no longer unreasonable. We certainly have lots of examples by now.

What does it mean in a democracy if people are voting for options that they literally know nothing about?

Here's an example of a voting test that I think would be totally fair. 3-6 months before the election, 20 multiple choice questions, and their answers, are released. The questions are all simple statement of facts. "What is the name of the person currently in such and such position." "What number amendment is quoted here". "If the president and vice president die, what is the name of the person who would assume the role of president." Then, when someone submits a ballot, they're handed 5 of these questions chosen at random, and they have to answer 4 correctly. The questions are all known ahead of time, so if there's a problem with one of them, everyone will know. If someone gets into the polling booth and can't answer these questions, then they don't know the most basic facts of our political system, and they didn't even bother to look them up even though they were explicitly told that they should know them.

Universal suffrage was a huge improvement on the political systems that came before, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better way.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#158

Post by stirlo »

lucb1e wrote: post #85

Just today I had someone casually mention that he thought women should not be allowed to vote. This is the Netherlands, the person is Dutch, not muslim or some other culture that I might not be used to, we're master's students... nothing out of the ordinary. And the third person in the conversation apparently agreed, calling it bad to prohibit it in principle but "seeing the effects of allowing women to vote" he agre…

The opinions of 1 powerless individual in a liberal democracy cannot be equated to the systematic oppression by the government and majority of the population in countries such as SA. Comments like yours seek to further a false equivalence.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#159

Post by dep_b »

mikeash wrote: post #149
dep_b wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you felt the urge to whatabout one of the most liberal and free countries while the discussion is about one of the most fucked up countries in the world that is the perfect marriage between fascism and religion and is actively exporting their retarded view on the way the world should be. You are extremely insensitive to mention something insignificant like some frat boys trolling you to the scale of assholism th…

It's not whataboutism, it's bringing up a similar sentiment in a different context and despairing about the attitude. A critical component of whataboutism is the part where you say "you are not in a position to criticize," which this person did not do.

> bringing up a similar sentiment

Killing women by throwing rocks at them because they dishonored the family is totally in the same direction of thoughts as accusing women of voting with their hearts over rationalism.

Please.

I don't like conservatives either but it's an entirely different category of messed up we're talking about.

Re: Saudi Arabia Agrees to Let Women Drive

#160

Post by nnfy »

noobermin wrote: post #143
liquidise wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdata, but i have never heard a self-described libertarian suggest that women should have their voting rights rescinded. At the risk of proclaiming No True Scottsman, the entire premise is so antithetical to a libertarian philosophy that i struggle to grasp how someone could embody such competing ideals. That being said, giving women the [due] right to vote effectively doubled the eligible voting pool in america.…

To be fair, if you are a libertarian, many people claim the libertarian moniker but then say very illiberal things; check any comment section of Reason when there is a black person killed by a cop. It is getting very hard for people outside your group to identify what libertarian means anymore because of that. A similar thing is happening on the left I think, but since it is my group, I might not be as mindful of it.…

Libertarian != liberal

Also, it is unfortunate that people continue to politicize police killings and attribute them to race. Such treatment is ignorant of stastics.

I think these glaring inconsistencies are just starting to tear the left apart. The right have their own problems, but they dont tend to be so obscenely inconsistent as to divide the base along racial and gender lines.

Post reply on HN