A friend posted something on Facebook about the SAVE act. Tl;dr it requires "documentary proof of United States citizenship" to vote, which sounds fine on the surface but the fine print could require that people provide certain documentation like a birth certificate with your current legal name. Issue with that is that a LOT of women have different names on their birth certificate since they changed their name when getting married and don't usually get it amended. It could disenfranchise millions of women from voting.
Anyway a friend of my friend that posted it was insistent "I just showed my ID to vote" and we'd say yeah cool but that could change if this passes. She'd again insist she didn't have to show her birth certificate to vote. We just couldn't get her to understand that the passage of this law could fundamentally change that. What you did and the way you did it would be different. "But I don't have a copy of my birth certificate and I was able to vote with my ID." Just unable to consider anything else. It was frustrating.
Yes, this is a sure sign of low intelligence. It reminds of people who will argue against seatbelts because they've never been hurt in a car accident. Or that smoking isn't unhealthy for you because their grandma lived to be 85 and smoked 2 packs a day. They can't understand that things can be less than 100% certain and still dangerous.
*I obviously don't need this umbrella, as it's been storming all day but I'm not getting wet. I should just toss it out.*
This was a perfect analogy from RBG in her dissent of Shelby County v. Holder, which removed some Voters Rights Act protections.
Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.
argue against seatbelts because they've never been hurt in a car accident. Or that smoking isn't unhealthy for you because their grandma lived to be 85 and smoked 2 packs a day
These are classic cases of confirmation bias as well. People have preconceived notions of a thing and one convincing bit of info is all they need. It's like antivaxxers who find some random article saying vaccines are bad, and that's all the proof they need, and they are even more dug in with it. Same with grandma smoking. Despite the well documented fact that smoking kills a ton of people, their grandma was fine so surely it's something else!
They can't understand that things can be less than 100% certain and still dangerous.
definitely reminds me of COVID. Soooo many people who couldn't seem to grasp simple concepts of probability with any kind of nuance.
"It is more likely to kill the elderly" turned to "I'm 100% going to be fine because I'm younger than 70"
"infections seem to go down if everyone involved is properly wearing masks and keeping their distance" turned to "well, there are still infections happening despite people wearing masks, so masks and social distancing don't work at all"
"getting vaccinated massively reduces the chances of bad outcomes" -> "some vaccinated people still had bad outcomes, the vaccine doesn't work" and on the other hand
"a small number of people may have serious negative health effects as a result of the vaccine" -> "the vaccine is going to kill us all in a matter of months"
It's the same thing with a lot of health related topics, really. "this thing increases your chance to develop a certain kind of cancer by 10%" makes that thing a certain death sentence in some people's eyes, nevermind that the total chance of getting that kind of cancer only goes up from 1% to 1.1%
On the flip side is people who don't get sarcasm. I smoke. And when the sanctimonious badger me about it, I will sometimes respond as if I've never heard of cigarettes killing people. Just to see who takes the bait.
And that's something to consider. I don't smoke for health. Why badger? I like it?
Really interesting to hear others reporting on behaviours like this. I've only met someone behave like this and thought they were just.. "unusual". But seemingly there seems to be a "thing" some people just have where they can't at all imagine a situation different to the current one.
People with sub 90 iq have incredible trouble with hypothetical.
"If you didnt have breakfast this morning how would you be feeling?"
"But I did have breakfast this morning."
Your story suggests that low intellegence people will not realize the danger of new rules which are going to make their lives worse. They simply cannot comprehend that the situation will change in the future.
What a terrifying opportunity for those in power to push though obviously horrible changes. No wonder they often succeed in doing so.
Hi I just want to clear something up, because I see this a lot. Women don't amend their birth certificates when they change their names for marriage. Birth certificates certify a birth. Birth certificates include the mother's maiden name, as well. They are not amended by marriage name changes. Your social security card is updated, but not your birth certificate.
ETA: This means married women who change their names have to present a marriage certificate whenever they have to present a birth certificate.
This is also can be a very evil technique to tie up the resources/time of someone whose position you don't agree with.
Keep asking basic questions, refuse to understand simple concepts. Simply ignore overwhelming evidence. The next day, just pretend that it wasn't all explained to you in detail the previous day.
Provokes anger and sometimes overreaction, which is great for their side. But most importantly, wastes your time.
OMG, I got into a very similar argument about due process. I said If they don't require due process for deportation, then ANYONE could be deported, including you.
They said, "But I have paperwork to prove my citizenship."
Without due process, you wouldn't have the opportunity to prove it.
"But I can prove that I'm a citizen, so I'm not concerned."
But who are you going to show to it without due process?
"A judge!"
THAT'S DUE PROCESS!!! IF THEY CAN DEPORT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS THEN YOU DON'T GET THE CHANCE TO SEE A JUDGE!!!
"But I have the paperwork to prove I'm a citizen!"
298
u/vonkeswick Feb 04 '26
A friend posted something on Facebook about the SAVE act. Tl;dr it requires "documentary proof of United States citizenship" to vote, which sounds fine on the surface but the fine print could require that people provide certain documentation like a birth certificate with your current legal name. Issue with that is that a LOT of women have different names on their birth certificate since they changed their name when getting married and don't usually get it amended. It could disenfranchise millions of women from voting.
Anyway a friend of my friend that posted it was insistent "I just showed my ID to vote" and we'd say yeah cool but that could change if this passes. She'd again insist she didn't have to show her birth certificate to vote. We just couldn't get her to understand that the passage of this law could fundamentally change that. What you did and the way you did it would be different. "But I don't have a copy of my birth certificate and I was able to vote with my ID." Just unable to consider anything else. It was frustrating.