Los Angeles Will Require Photo ID For Homeless Hotel Living But Not Voting

[seanD]

The fact that there are counter studies and a continuing academic debate on the topic undermines the sentiments expressed here that opposition to strict voter ID laws are reducible to partisanship and belief that minority voters are inferior, as opposed to reasonable conclusions based on lines of evidence.

Congratulations, you helped knock down your own argument!

-Sam

I was making a general statement about leftists in a broader sense. I highly doubt the leftists in the following video and their racist views about minorities know the study you cited even exists, much less ever looked at it...

They seem to be spouting typical racist tropes about minorities they probably picked up from family and friends. Tropes that you'd probably hear from a white supremacist in the pre-civil rights era. I doubt college students know anything about the study, much less non-college students.

[Sam]

I was making a general statement about leftists in a broader sense. I highly doubt the leftists in the following video and their racist views about minorities know the study you cited even exists, much less ever looked at it...

They seem to be spouting typical racist tropes about minorities they probably picked up from family and friends. Tropes that you'd probably hear from a white supremacist in the pre-civil rights era. I doubt college students know anything about the study, much less non-college students.

Drawing broad, derogatory conclusions from a handful of cherry-picked man-on-the-street interviews.

Good luck with that. Very little risk of being hoist on your own petard.

-Sam

[seanD]

Drawing broad, derogatory conclusions from a handful of cherry-picked man-on-the-street interviews.

Good luck with that. Very little risk of being hoist on your own petard.

-Sam

I was making a general comment about a broader political group, and the video does well in continuing to support that view. You're the one who made it academic, yet even that you failed at, so you really have no place to judge me and my sources in order to try and save face.

[Diogenes]

Drawing broad, derogatory conclusions from a handful of cherry-picked man-on-the-street interviews.

Good luck with that. Very little risk of being hoist on your own petard.

-Sam

Ah yes, just the man on the street:

[Sam]

Drawing broad, derogatory conclusions from a handful of cherry-picked man-on-the-street interviews.

Good luck with that. Very little risk of being hoist on your own petard.

-Sam

I was making a general comment about a broader political group, and the video does well in continuing to support that view. You're the one who made it academic, yet even that you failed at, so you really have no place to judge me and my sources in order to try and save face.

Hrm. Indeed.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

The fact that there are counter studies and a continuing academic debate on the topic undermines the sentiments expressed here that opposition to strict voter ID laws are reducible to partisanship and belief that minority voters are inferior, as opposed to reasonable conclusions based on lines of evidence.

Congratulations, you helped knock down your own argument!

-Sam

You cited a flawed study, seanD cited a follow-up study exposing the flaws... and you think you somehow got the better of that exchange?

Sure, man, whatever you need to tell yourself.

[Sam]

You cited a flawed study, seanD cited a follow-up study exposing the flaws... and you think you somehow got the better of that exchange?

Sure, man, whatever you need to tell yourself.

This is what happens when you don't bother reading what people are writing and when you don't consider strategy in your thought process. To break it down:

As:

1) the point of presenting a peer-reviewed research paper was not to establish an authoritative last word but to rebut the prejudicial assertion that opponents of strict voter ID laws are racist and uninterested in "fact"

and

2) the existence or validity of working-paper counterarguments do not respond to the salient point of argument

therefore

3) it is not necessary to argue whether the conclusions of the peer-reviewed research paper's alleged flaws have merit.

If I thought for a second that seanD or anyone else had read any of the papers offered in full, I'd be willing to entertain a discussion on whether the counterarguments have merit and how much merit they have in the overall discussion, noting that seanD's own source states that strict voter ID laws have no effect on real or perceived fraud and it's an "own-goal moment" to argue for restrictive laws that both impede democratic access and don't actually work.

But we're not having that conversation because it's irrelevant to the point that opposition to strict voter ID cannot be reducible to blanket statements of racism and ignorance and that there is, indeed, a continuing and robust academic debate about the issue.

-Sam

[seanD]

This is what happens when you don't bother reading what people are writing and when you don't consider strategy in your thought process. To break it down:

As:

1) the point of presenting a peer-reviewed research paper was not to establish an authoritative last word but to rebut the prejudicial assertion that opponents of strict voter ID laws are racist and uninterested in "fact"

and

2) the existence or validity of working-paper counterarguments do not respond to the salient point of argument

therefore

3) it is not necessary to argue whether the conclusions of the peer-reviewed research paper's alleged flaws have merit.

If I thought for a second that seanD or anyone else had read any of the papers offered in full, I'd be willing to entertain a discussion on whether the counterarguments have merit and how much merit they have in the overall discussion, noting that seanD's own source states that strict voter ID laws have no effect on real or perceived fraud and it's an "own-goal moment" to argue for restrictive laws that both impede democratic access and don't actually work.

But we're not having that conversation because it's irrelevant to the point that opposition to strict voter ID cannot be reducible to blanket statements of racism and ignorance and that there is, indeed, a continuing and robust academic debate about the issue.

-Sam

I wasn't referring to the discussion about it in academic circles. You dragged that into the conversation thinking you somehow scored a win, when it ended up being a failure. I was talking about discussions about it with ordinary everyday leftists who don't read or know anything about academic papers and what their views are about minorities. If you can find a "man on the street" video with common ordinary leftists stating they think voter ID is racist and suppressive while citing your flawed study to support their view, perhaps I'll consider it a counter argument.

[Sam]

I wasn't referring to the discussion about it in academic circles. You dragged that into the conversation thinking you somehow scored a win, when it ended up being a failure. I was talking about discussions about it with ordinary everyday leftists who don't read or know anything about academic papers and what their views are about minorities. If you can find a "man on the street" video with common ordinary leftists stating they think voter ID is racist and suppressive while citing your flawed study to support their view, perhaps I'll consider it a counter argument.

The value of pointing out a prejudicial stereotype does not rest on countering a handful of anecdotes with a countervailing handful of anecdotes. You don't personally know or have experience with enough "ordinary everyday leftists" to make your claim, nor would providing examples of "ordinary everyday leftists" who base their opposition to strict voter ID laws on the belief that such laws have discriminatory effect dissuade you. Understanding that there is an existing and ongoing debate about the effect and value of strict voter ID laws might compel someone with stereotypical beliefs to reevaluate their own biases ... but I'm not expecting that here.

-Sam

[seanD]

The value of pointing out a prejudicial stereotype does not rest on countering a handful of anecdotes with a countervailing handful of anecdotes. You don't personally know or have experience with enough "ordinary everyday leftists" to make your claim, nor would providing examples of "ordinary everyday leftists" who base their opposition to strict voter ID laws on the belief that such laws have discriminatory effect dissuade you. Understanding that there is an existing and ongoing debate about the effect and value of strict voter ID laws might compel someone with stereotypical beliefs to reevaluate their own biases ... but I'm not expecting that here.

-Sam

I've had enough experiences with leftists to know for a fact they're racist. Granted, I don't consider most of them malicious racists and likely mean well, but they're still extremely condescending and off-putting individuals. As far as any debate, I don't see a debate. I see an academic paper, stated by a different group of academics to be flawed, used by a leftist in a failed attempt to confirm his own partisan biases about the subject. Where's the debate?

[seer]

The fact that there are counter studies and a continuing academic debate on the topic undermines the sentiments expressed here that opposition to strict voter ID laws are reducible to partisanship and belief that minority voters are inferior, as opposed to reasonable conclusions based on lines of evidence.

Congratulations, you helped knock down your own argument!

-Sam

Again, tell me how do you stop an illegal from registering to vote and voting? And how do you find out how many illegals may have voted?

[Sam]

Drawing broad, derogatory conclusions from a handful of cherry-picked man-on-the-street interviews.

Good luck with that. Very little risk of being hoist on your own petard.

-Sam

I was making a general comment about a broader political group, and the video does well in continuing to support that view. You're the one who made it academic, yet even that you failed at, so you really have no place to judge me and my sources in order to try and save face.

Hrm. Indeed.

-Sam

I've had enough experiences with leftists to know for a fact they're racist. Granted, I don't consider most of them malicious racists and likely mean well, but they're still extremely condescending and off-putting individuals. As far as any debate, I don't see a debate. I see an academic paper, stated by a different group of academics to be flawed, used by a leftist in a failed attempt to confirm his own partisan biases about the subject. Where's the debate?

Hrm.

-Sam

[whag]

I've had enough experiences with leftists to know for a fact they're racist. Granted, I don't consider most of them malicious racists and likely mean well, but they're still extremely condescending and off-putting individuals. As far as any debate, I don't see a debate. I see an academic paper, stated by a different group of academics to be flawed, used by a leftist in a failed attempt to confirm his own partisan biases about the subject. Where's the debate?

You’re smart enough to know your argument doesn’t allow the inverse handful of anecdotes: we’ve had plenty of experience to know right wingers are racist, many of them maliciously so. Do you care? No. Do we care about your oft-repeated anecdotal claim? No.

That’s a clue you start somewhere else more solid.

[whag]

Hrm.

-Sam

He says that knowing the bent of confederate flag wavers typically doesn’t skew atheist democrat.

[seanD]

You’re smart enough to know your argument doesn’t allow the inverse handful of anecdotes: we’ve had plenty of experience to know right wingers are racist, many of them maliciously so. Do you care? No. Do we care about your oft-repeated anecdotal claim? No.

That’s a clue you start somewhere else more solid.

You not only always enter the mix to bring up topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion, but you misrepresent the views of people on top of that. I've never denied there are malicious racists, in fact, we've had this discussion...

I ignored it because I don't see how it was relevant. Yes, there are malicious racists out there, but, as I said, there not as damaging as racism on the left because it's openly malicious. If I see a person with a southern drawl throwing around the N-word, I'll avoid that person. That's far less insidious to me than a leftist wanting to coddle me for being a minority because they believe they're my white betters.

Most rightwingers aren't advocating against voter ID because they believe minorities are inferior and can't acquire said ID. So what are you on about exactly and how does that relate to the current discussion?