For help on how to follow a comic title,
Such questions are trivia. Suppose the responder answers “18th”, because they recognise that the Revolution was also a civil war? What then? The question obviously has 2 correct answers, but only one of them will be marked correct. But what significant difference would that make?
Ted, would you really want voting to depend on people who can memorise status-quo trivia, though?
I’ve no trouble imagining a genuinely searching test.
It would be open book, proctored, and, to prevent Jim-Crow outcomes, test-takers could have a coach of their choice to help in understanding the questions from the standpoint of the test-taker.
It would cover various forms of political, social, and economic governments, the principles behind them, their histories as they affected various groups of citizens/subjects, the requirements of real participation and dangers of pro-forma voting, and the choices the people face when governments fail to satisfy.
Each test would be graded, with consideration of the test-taker’s personal limits, by PolSci scholars (perhaps chosen at random) and the coach(es) of the individual test-taker, with high-pass (can vote), low-pass (can vote now but must re-take next time), and fail as the possible outcomes.
The last time I looked at that test, it was wall-to-wall status-quo trivia.
I suppose I don’t think of it as thought-policing, but rather social protection.
They invariably try to implement or increase their absolute hegemony, have already succeeded in a myriad of ways, and are busy closing off all avenues of change short of armed revolution.
Since we are by far the majority, they shouldn’t be able to do that, yet here we are.
Have I missed seeing some get-out-of-bondage-without-gunfire card? :-)
Which is dangerous ground?
It’s truly hard for most healthy people to grasp, but there are many individuals who are completely opposed to anyone’s freedom and rights but their own.
Those individuals don’t want other people to vote, they want to enslave them. Lincoln even wrote in his journal about the debates among the rich over whether and how much of the entire working class and their descendants should be enslaved for life.
Such individuals are extremely dangerous, because they never even consider whether there could be limits on their personal certainty of entitlement. They definitely should not have any kind of power, and possibly should be locked up for life. But we don’t do that. Why?
Pretty sure that’s a rat he’s broiling, not a lizard.
I don’t know that that’s actually necessary, ethically.
I wonder how much he made off his “public service”. $1M? 5M? 10? 50M? 100M?
Does anyone actually grill pineapple?