Obviously there's no shortage of ugly history in Europe, but Europe doesn't have this particular historical context. I would expect Europeans to be naive about this. I've had this discussion before.
> You don’t think black people can get ids?
Statistically, they are less likely to do so.
Edit: For me, an eye opening tidbit was this admission by a Republican strategist that the late 20th century discourse was about shifting from overt language about racism to more covert, abstract, economic talking points that are still rooted in racism. This is a left wing source but has the actual audio recording of that admission. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa... -- the takeaway is that you can't take a surface level read on a proposal and trust that no direct mention of race implies that it is not racist.
I think what Atwater predicted in this clip somewhat came true. Enough time has passed that young people have unironically embraced the dog whistles as idealized abstractions about small government and economics, states rights or federalism, without realizing they used to be dog whistles and not genuinely held when popularized.
Holy shit mate, do you hear your self? This is literally 13/52 talk.
Black people can get ids, they should get ids, just like everyone does in every other civilised country. I honestly can’t understand how anyone can oppose such a simple and natural thing.
> Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African- American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.
I did not make up the statistic.
I do not endorse it or wish it to continue, but numerically, that is what it is. This is probably the largest reason one side of the American political spectrum, the one who would benefit from lower racial minority turnout, supports tightening the laws.
In tight elections like we routinely have, that statistical disparity can be enough to alter electoral outcomes.
Bruv, that is literally what racists say about crime stats. Black people account for only 13% of the population yet commit 52% of the crime. And they say “I did not make up the statistic.
I do not endorse it or wish it to continue, but numerically, that is what it is.” and then go on to suggest segregation or some other ridiculous thing. Just like you are suggesting ridiculous things like opposing id cards. They work, everyone uses and yes you god damned racist, black people can get them, they’re not retarded ffs!
There's a huge difference between blaming black people for crime and wanting to prevent voter disenfranchisement that the status quo says disproportionately affects black people.
They can get ID cards.. but they are less likely to. There are all sorts of factors involved in that, which are lamentable but we won't be able to solve overnight. Taking away voting rights will probably not help us get there either.
I swear this is literally the meme with the soyjack at the end crying “no, not like this!”
There is literally no functional difference between using racial statistics to argue for segregation or against id cards. The only difference is, you like one policy and dislike the other.
I completely agree. You are denigrating black people by implying they’re retarded and can’t get something as simple as an id card, and I am protecting voting rights by supporting a measure that will aid in increasing trust in the elections.
ACLU is no longer an unbiased source and regularly peddles regime propaganda.
"Studies of the effects of voter ID laws on turnout in the United States have generally found that such laws have little, if any, effect on turnout." [0]
"A 2014 study from the University of Iowa found no evidence that strict voter ID laws reduce minority turnout.[127] A 2012 study found that, although the Georgia voter ID laws lowered overall turnout by 0.4%, there was no racial or ethnic component to the suppression effect." [0]
Sorry, I tried a few drafts and I'm not sure how to say this. I am blown away by your reference to "the regime". It destroys your credibility immediately. It marks you as a very paranoid person.
I don't agree with everything ACLU says or does either. I don't start accusing them of conspiracy theories. I feel like pockets of HN are much more pro right wing conspiracy theory vs. just one year ago.
Anyway, the Wikipedia article you link to also has my argument represented, too ... Maybe read more of it.
If someone says ACLU is "propaganda for the Biden regime" I would say that person is pretty conspiracy theorist adjacent and not expressing themselves like someone in touch with reality.
> You don’t think black people can get ids?
Statistically, they are less likely to do so.
Edit: For me, an eye opening tidbit was this admission by a Republican strategist that the late 20th century discourse was about shifting from overt language about racism to more covert, abstract, economic talking points that are still rooted in racism. This is a left wing source but has the actual audio recording of that admission. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa... -- the takeaway is that you can't take a surface level read on a proposal and trust that no direct mention of race implies that it is not racist.
I think what Atwater predicted in this clip somewhat came true. Enough time has passed that young people have unironically embraced the dog whistles as idealized abstractions about small government and economics, states rights or federalism, without realizing they used to be dog whistles and not genuinely held when popularized.