wtf is this video title?
i'm pretty sure people aren't talking about California but states like Alabama where DMVs are shut down and they have to travel outside of their county to get IDs
[QUOTE=Firespray;51544943]wtf is this video title?
i'm pretty sure people aren't talking about California but states like Alabama where DMVs are shut down and they have to travel outside of their county to get IDs[/QUOTE]
That affects all people, not just black people and entirely a separate issue. This video means to address the prejudice of lower standards and expectations.
So going up to random people on the streets negates basic facts and statistics now? If I went up to 100 people on the street and asked them if they felt warmer than last year and they said no does that mean global warming is a hoax?
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51544958]That affects all people, not just black people and entirely a separate issue. This video means to address the prejudice of lower standards and expectations.[/QUOTE]
While it doesn't just effect black communities, it DOES disproportionately effect them. It specifically targets communities which are
1. Poor
2. Whose demographic makeup is predominately Black.
Source: [URL]https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/alabamas-dmv-shutdown-has-everything-do-race[/URL]
Combine these two and you have voter suppression tactics. I highly doubt this video is meant to address any form of prejudice. To me it seems like they were asked a question about Voter ID laws, innocent enough okay. People respond with what they know of how it suppresses minority communities throughout the United States then the guy doing the interview goes into THE SAME EXACT community (just one block away from where the first set of questions were asked<-- Ayy, I was wrong, it actually is Harlem in the second portion of the video. Thought he was lying about it because some of the buildings looked suspiciously familiar, the first half is in Berkeley, CA btw) and just asks Black people a different set of questions. They literally moved down the street to ask these questions. If he was out to be more honest, he could have asked them about Voter ID laws as well and I bet you would get the same answer. This video is being highly dishonest and the ways in which it asks questions and are highly suspect. This should not be viewed in any form as any sort of objective knowledge, it's completely biased. Hell, even look at the description of the video.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/JsnrdCU.png[/t]
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;51544988]So going up to random people on the streets negates basic facts and statistics now? If I went up to 100 people on the street and asked them if they felt warmer than last year and they said no does that mean global warming is a hoax?[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't Harlem, a predominately black community, be of the most useful areas to survey in this case? And what basic facts and statistics?
[editline]17th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firespray;51545022]While it doesn't just effect black communities, it DOES disproportionately effect them. It specifically targets communities which are
1. Poor
2. Whose demographic makeup is predominately Black.
Source: [URL]https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/alabamas-dmv-shutdown-has-everything-do-race[/URL]
Combine these two and you have voter suppression tactics. I highly doubt this video is meant to address any form of prejudice. To me it seems like they were asked a question about Voter ID laws, innocent enough okay. People respond with what they know of how it suppresses minority communities throughout the United States then the guy doing the interview goes into THE SAME EXACT community (just one block away from where the first set of questions were asked, it's in Berkeley, CA btw) and just asks Black people a different set of questions. They literally moved down the street to ask these questions. If he was out to be more honest, he could have asked them about Voter ID laws as well and I bet you would get the same answer. This video is being highly dishonest and the ways in which it asks questions and are highly suspect. This should not be viewed in any form as any sort of objective knowledge, it's completely biased. Hell, even look at the description of the video.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/JsnrdCU.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Harlem isn't in Berekley, buddy. I live next to Berkeley, I would know.
so because they asked people in two different areas of the country, that are across the nation, you know they didn't based on what exactly lol
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545032]Why wouldn't Harlem, a predominately black community, be of the most useful areas to survey in this case? And what basic facts and statistics?[/QUOTE]
Because voter suppression isn't as big of a deal in Harlem as it is in other areas of the U.S. Now I am not saying that any form of voter suppression should be ignored, but there are places where this problem is more prominent. If data was to suggest that Harlem has an ongoing campaign to suppress Black voters, then you can at least begin the process to get some real answers about how it begins to effect people. Before anyone can start making generalizable claims like he does in the video, there are a number of steps one has to consider.
1. Sample size: This video had a total of what? 7-8 people? When doing research like this for qualitative interviews, the gold standard is usually around 100-140 people. Granted, its a video, but if you are trying to make claims like these you should put a note, or something in the description saying you did X amount and here are my findings. However, I would expect more especially when trying to construct generalizable data.
2. The way and which the questions are worded and to whom: This is huge, otherwise you can just fit any narrative you want to regardless of sample size.
3. Location: Again, hugely important. This was done in Berkeley, California, a place that I can safely say is pretty left/liberal. Would voter suppression be a huge deal here? No, it wouldn't. Edit: Would it be a problem in Harlem now too? Nope.
4. Sampling techniques: How is the sampling done? Is it 100% random? Is it stratified? This also effects your final answers. In this video, they used non-probability sampling, or more specifically, availability sampling in which people are selected on the basis of convenience. It is usually considered one of the weakest because for one, you don't get a diverse pool of people and second, the data that you get from it is literally only applicable for that specific area.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545032]Why wouldn't Harlem, a predominately black community, be of the most useful areas to survey in this case? And what basic facts and statistics?
[editline]17th December 2016[/editline]
Harlem isn't in Berekley, buddy. I live next to Berkeley, I would know.[/QUOTE]
My bad, a portion of the second part of the video looked suspiciously like a place in Berkeley so I assumed it was. I live in Berkeley too you know.
I can't really think of any other place that would be better to survey with questions like these. Harlem is one of, if not they most, notable African American communities in America.
This video isn't meant to be scholarly and obviously anecdotal, but it is obvious to recognise the surprise on behalf of the interviewees in Harlem being asked the questions. The assumption on behalf of the students in Berkeley barely represent that Black community.
Because the concerns people are having about voter ID laws are in the south
I think my state, Texas, did it pretty well. You can take in a huge variety of stuff, such as a bank statement, a bill, birth certificate, etc. and then sign with a small explanation on why you lack a photo ID.
Also it's not like a video like this could be manipulative with the footage with how it selects which clips to present. Or have multiple other problems from a scientific standpoint.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545032] And what basic facts and statistics?
[/QUOTE]
Courts in [URL="http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NCLWVopinion042516.pdf"]North Carolina[/URL] and [URL="http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/wisconsin-voter.id_.pdf"]Winsconsin[/URL] both reached the conclusions that while not racially motivated, the results of instituting their respective voter ID laws would have a disproportionate effect (radically so, in Winsconsins case) on black and hispanic voters. I can't find any hard numbers in this [URL="http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/VeaseyOpinion100914.pdf"]Texas [/URL]case but it also makes the case that these laws have a disproportionate affect on the poor generally and minorities in particular.
Also, your video is full of shit. Dude asks a bunch of "liberal elite" college kids to give their opinions that actually happen to line up directly with what judges in several states have argued then tells black people on the street that white people don't think they have ID. It's absurd, nowhere near scientific, and the fact that this is hosted on the Fox News channel just illustrates that just when you think they have reached the bottom of the barrel they just keep digging.
Why did you editorialize the title?
1:14-1:29 :speechless: this is some next level shit
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545145]I can't really think of any other place that would be better to survey with questions like these. Harlem is one of, if not they most, notable African American communities in America.[/QUOTE]
Because for one they didn't ask the same questions to the people in Harlem. They gave them a new set of questions and setting them up for a specific answer.
[QUOTE=krakadict;51545161]1:14-1:29 :speechless: this is some next level shit[/QUOTE]
Well, there is a problem with mass incarceration in the US as a result of things like our war on drugs. And when you look at the numbers, it does disproportionately hit black people along with a myriad of historical factors that just in general make it more likely for them to be involved with crime.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51545159]Courts in [URL="http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NCLWVopinion042516.pdf"]North Carolina[/URL] and [URL="http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/wisconsin-voter.id_.pdf"]Winsconsin[/URL] both reached the conclusions that while not racially motivated, the results of instituting their respective voter ID laws would have a disproportionate effect (radically so, in Winsconsins case) on black and hispanic voters. I can't find any hard numbers in this [URL="http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/VeaseyOpinion100914.pdf"]Texas [/URL]case but it also makes the case that these laws have a disproportionate affect on the poor generally and minorities in particular.
Also, your video is full of shit. Dude asks a bunch of "liberal elite" college kids to give their opinions that actually happen to line up directly with what judges in several states have argued then tells black people on the street that white people don't think they have ID. It's absurd, nowhere near scientific, and the fact that this is hosted on the Fox News channel just illustrates that just when you think they have reached the bottom of the barrel they just keep digging.
Why did you editorialize the title?[/QUOTE]
Title was edited because the original was pretty clickbaity and reactionary. I found it more important to analyze the responses from the Berekley students given and how absurd they were.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545145]I can't really think of any other place that would be better to survey with questions like these. Harlem is one of, if not they most, notable African American communities in America.
This video isn't meant to be scholarly and obviously anecdotal, but it is obvious to recognise the surprise on behalf of the interviewees in Harlem being asked the questions. The assumption on behalf of the students in Berkeley barely represent that Black community.[/QUOTE]
It's also a community in a liberal, democratic area of a liberal, democratic state. New York has no voter ID laws. Shocker, the people who are entirely unaffected by a problem have no strong opinions relating to that problem. How about ask in a city like Philly where black people are 85% more likely than whites to have no ID and therefore cannot vote.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;51545175]It's also a community in a liberal, democratic area of a liberal, democratic state. New York has no voter ID laws. Shocker, the people who are entirely unaffected by a problem have no strong opinions relating to that problem.[/QUOTE]
The primary argument against voter id was that it was inaccessible to black people because of their social and economic status. Being in a democratic or liberal area has nothing to do with that.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545189]The primary argument against voter id was that it was inaccessible to black people because of their social and economic status. Being in a democratic or liberal area has nothing to do with that.[/QUOTE]
Of course it does! Areas like that don't often have voter suppression laws! The laws work because it targets poor Black (and minority) communities. You can't just separate the two from each other.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545189]The primary argument against voter id was that it was inaccessible to black people because of their social and economic status. Being in a democratic or liberal area has nothing to do with that.[/QUOTE]
Did you even read my post? I'm explaining why, aside from the fact that this video is 100% cherrypicked I'm sure, you might see less black people criticizing voter id laws in Harlem than most other places in the country. The point is that Harlem was picked for this video for that very reason. By conducting this "survey" in Harlem, they're more likely to come up with the result they're looking for, aside from the fact that their questions are precisely worded to illicit the exact response they're looking for and the fact that they have editing on their side.
[QUOTE=Firespray;51545197]Of course it does! Areas like that don't often have voter suppression laws! The laws work because it targets poor Black (and minority) communities. You can't just separate the two from each other.[/QUOTE]
I'm still failing to see a law that is racist in intent.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545226]I'm still failing to see a law that is racist in intent.[/QUOTE]
"Poor black people don't vote Republican, how do we solve that problem? I know, disenfranchise poor black people."
Yeah you're right nothing racist about that.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;51545199]Did you even read my post? I'm explaining why, aside from the fact that this video is 100% cherrypicked I'm sure, you might see less black people criticizing voter id laws in Harlem than most other places in the country. The point is that Harlem was picked for this video for that very reason. By conducting this "survey" in Harlem, they're more likely to come up with the result they're looking for, aside from the fact that their questions are precisely worded to illicit the exact response they're looking for and the fact that they have edited on their side.[/QUOTE]
I understand your point - my primarily grievance though is with the Berkeley students giving their commentary on the issue as if Black people are somehow incapable of preforming basic functions and need coddling through every step of their life.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545232]I understand your point - my primarily grievance though is with the Berkeley students giving their commentary on the issue as if Black people are somehow incapable of preforming basic functions and need coddling through every step of their life.[/QUOTE]
Nobody ever said that, but if I lived in a city and therefore didn't have a driver's license, and told me I had to go get one in order to vote, I wouldn't vote. Neither would most people apparently. That's exactly what Republicans are betting on by instituting these laws. Nobody's worried about black people not having the agency to go get an ID to vote, the point is that in most cases, people don't want to, and in more extreme cases, may not even be able to get an ID if they want to.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545173]Title was edited because the original was pretty clickbaity and reactionary. I found it more important to analyze the responses from the Berekley students given and how absurd they were.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why you would editorialize the title of a video you posted anyway and I understand even less why it's a drastically different question to what the video even asks.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51545242]I don't understand why you would editorialize the title of a video you posted anyway and I understand even less why it's a drastically different question to what the video even asks.[/QUOTE]
He asked the same question to the Berkeley students.
[editline]17th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;51545239]Nobody ever said that, but if I lived in a city and therefore didn't have a driver's license, and told me I had to go get one in order to vote, I wouldn't vote. Neither would most people apparently. That's exactly what Republicans are betting on by instituting these laws. Nobody's worried about black people not having the agency to go get an ID to vote, the point is that in most cases, people don't want to, and in more extreme cases, may not even be able to get an ID if they want to.[/QUOTE]
Photo ID is required for a voter ID in some states. You don't need a driver's license for photo ID.
In other states you can have a non-photo ID and still get a voter ID.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545246]He asked the same question to the Berkeley students.
[editline]17th December 2016[/editline]
You don't need a driver's license for photo ID, which is what a request for voter ID requires.[/QUOTE]
But a driver's license is the only form of ID most people have any reason (other than voting) to have. If you don't have a driver's license, then voter ID laws mean that in addition to registering to vote, finding a chance you're not working to go vote, and waiting in line to vote, you also have to find a chance when not working to go to the DMV (not even possible in many areas of the country) and wait in line there to get an ID just so you can exercise your most basic right as a US citizen. That's more than enough to keep a person from voting.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;51545255]But a driver's license is the only form of ID most people have any reason (other than voting) to have. If you don't have a driver's license, then voter ID laws mean that in addition to registering to vote, finding a chance you're not working to go vote, and waiting in line to vote, you also have to find a chance when not working to go to the DMV (not even possible in many areas of the country) and wait in line there to get an ID just so you can exercise your most basic right as a US citizen. That's more than enough to keep a person from voting.[/QUOTE]
Just because it is a right doesn't mean it can't be regulated to ensure that the system is working to fight against fraud. That is why gun licenses exist even though we have the 2nd ammendment.
People have social security, work IDs, school IDs, birth certificates, debit cards, Costco cards, Safeway cards. I doubt people only go around with just their driver's license.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545232]I understand your point - my primarily grievance though is with the Berkeley students giving their commentary on the issue as if Black people are somehow incapable of preforming basic functions and need coddling through every step of their life.[/QUOTE]
There is one person at a stretch I'd say this applies to, the rest of the people he interviewed gave completely accurate representations. Black people are less likely to have the ID required by most state ID laws. It's not a dramatically high number (the highest estimate for Winsconsin voters without state ID was 8.4%) but it is disproportionate. He used a tiny, insignificant sample size to arrive at the implied conclusion that this disparity doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545261]Just because it is a right doesn't mean it can't be regulated to ensure that the system is working to fight against fraud. That is why gun licenses exist even though we have the 2nd ammendment.[/QUOTE]
And the people who are in favor of these laws will do anything to say that gun licenses are unconstitutional and unamerican and need to be struck down immediately. Gun licenses are in place (that's debatable) to prevent people from killing each other, a serious problem. Voter ID laws are in place to prevent In-Person voter fraud, a problem that doesn't exist. There's a big difference there. Solving a non-existent problem doesn't warrant disenfranchising millions of Americans. But people being shot and killed does warrant inconveniencing some.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545261]Just because it is a right doesn't mean it can't be regulated to ensure that the system is working to fight against fraud. That is why gun licenses exist even though we have the 2nd ammendment.[/QUOTE]
If it disenfranchises exponentially more people than there are cases of fraud, what's the point?
If Republicans can prove that fraud happens at anything above a barely measurable level and push legislation that doesn't disproportionately impact the poor and minorities for political benefit then maybe you'd start seeing more popular support.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
