174
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
174 points (98.9% liked)
news
24588 readers
688 users here now
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Somewhere on reddit, some dork is arguing that 5,352 people is not a good enough sample size.
it literally isn't a good sample size, especially for their selection process in the breakdown of a place as diverse and varied in peoples and living conditions and environments like the US and its 350 million people. It's a religious-focused NGO for "christian nationalism in politics", has vanishingly few young people, does terrible breakdowns in the full report and tells us nothing about class or income, self-selects for those who are on consistent addresses in USPS lines with internet access who would be arsed to do these surveys (as well as has hundreds of self-selected opt-ins), the report is trash by a non-profit for "finding the intersection of religion and politics for clergy and the public"
No, it's actually an excellent sample size. This study is absolutely worrying because it was conducted well.
https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/
This is a sample size calculator,
Punching in 350M for population size, 2% margin of error, and 95% Confidence interval we get a necessary sample size of at least 2401, this study had a sample size of 5352
As for their margin of error, using the above population and confidence interval values but adding in 5352 for the actual sample size we get a calculated margin of error of 1.34%
This study is valid and its findings should worry everyone.
It's a perfectly good sample size, you're absolutely right, but @anarcho_blinkenist@hexbear.net raises good questions about whether it's an appropriately random sample.
Edit: They use weighting to put things closer to what the general population actually looks like, but here's what their unweighted numbers are:
Okay I see the criticism, but would the more honest title:
approximately 47% of Americans aged 30 and older believe immigrants should be put in militarized camps
really have changed the conclusions and implications?
It's fucking disgusting no matter how you look at it.
I suppose that number might go down to 30% at best if 18-29 year olds were properly sampled.
I agree. Like, we could get the number down by asking the question a different way, too, but ultimately the issue is that ~97% of votes will go to candidates who will increase the power, reach, and budget of ICE and the military.
The millennial demographic is the most disappointing thing about this. How is that this group ISN'T the one that believes overwhelmingly in non negotiable human rights for immigrants?
The main conclusion I got from the survey is that the majority of crackers want to shove their POC neighbors into concentration camps.
Yeah I knew that already
It's also in how the question is phrased and so on. They're basically goading people into agreeing with right-wing stuff in these polls.
Here's the actual question and results:
Q30e. Rounding up and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally, even if it takes setting up encampments guarded by the U.S. military
Strongly favor 22%
Favor 25%
Oppose 28%
Strongly oppose 22%
Skipped/ Refused 3%
and the next question "Which statement comes closest to your view about how the immigration system should deal with immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. illegally? [ROTATE]" shows that over 60% of people say citizenship (56%) or permanent residency (11%)
which also seems to entirely contradict the previous one lol.
Ok I guess I'm a dummy lol. I was more just blowing off steam. I'm having a shitty mental health existence right now. Sorry.
Nope. You're original comment was correct. See my response to anarcho blinkinest
đź«‚