Tanista
1d ago
As long as you believe there is a good chance for you to become rich, that is often enough to justify voting against it.
Why would you believe this when you see your group failing more in the market?
The problem is that races are not equally politically united. It's not a given that any race (besides African-Americans) are going to be for a party to such a degree that a partisan gerrymander is synonymous with a racial one. So you risk essentially rewarding the most polarized groups (presumably the thing we eventually want less of) and/or disenfranchising less polarized people in order to give them representation.
It's not an easy problem. I'd say it's near unavoidable under the current system, like gerrymandering itself. What is the compromise solution here? Some room for partisan gerrymandering except where it causes a racial gerrymander which then, by your own argument, is a partisan gerrymander that necessitates a gerrymander in the other direction?
Tanista
1d ago
Same for the weird relationship with the Sublime
The Sublime seems to resolve most of your complaints it seems to me.
It's a process any collective group can go through that takes them to a realm where it's proven nothing can die nor get bored (in fact, realspace is so boring in comparison most people never return) and there's endless discovery and growth.
It's more democratic than realspace since non-Minds can have it and apparently all sapient races can achieve it.
Tanista
1d ago
If I write a dystopia about an oppressive one-party state, but then add a lot of statements into the story that in this world it has been scientifically been proven that this is the logical endpoint of any and all societies, does this suddenly make it not a dystopia?
It's a dystopia because of the "oppressive" downside, Culture Minds are not oppressive, just superior.
Yeah, that's a pretty hard sell given that manifestly it is considered a problem in the community and even rich blacks line up behind Democrats as a result.
More options
Context Copy link