5 ms·

City Journal is published by the Manhattan Institute. > The Institute's research seeks to develop and promote free-market ideas. > [The institute] argued that

City Journal is published by the Manhattan Institute. > The Institute's research seeks to develop and promote free-market ideas. > [The institute] argued that the welfare state had fostered a culture and cycle of dependency that was to the detriment of both welfare recipients and the United States as a whole. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Poli...

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
How is this relevant? How does this fact invalidate any of what the article stated?
- bitwize 9y ago
  Conservative think tanks are well known to lie to promote their agenda.
  - devmunchies 9y ago
    That's sound like anything political and not just conservatives. Speaking of conservatives (and to bring things back to the article), I remember reading on HN that salt lake city, Utah is one of the best at handling homelessness.
- _jal 9y ago
  Funny how attribution brings out defensiveness. Do you also think all bylines should be removed from articles? It doesn't appear to me that the OP was saying anything about invalidation.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    People naturally form us-vs-them tribal mentalities, and the fact that this is the top comment of this post indicates that its a tribal mentality that's leading it to be upvoted. It's like saying on a Roy Moore post that the investigation was carried out by CNBC: it leads to Republicans invalidating any finding of the investigation. This default of ignoring any information from the Other Side is what almost got Roy Moore elected. This us-vs-them mentality needs to be noted. The fact that this comes from a think tank does not immediately mean they don't raise a good point.
    - _jal 9y ago
      I agree that tribal bullshit has hit a dangerous fever pitch. I also agree that the product of think tanks are not inherently incorrect. But, if you wanted to bet me I couldn't guess what Americans For Prosperity thinks of the tax bill without reading anything from them about it, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. You don't fix this by ignoring attribution or yelling at people for noting it. You also don't do so by attacking strawmen.
      - johansch 9y ago
        How about just, you know, addressing the points the article made?
        _jal 9y ago
        - Because nobody ignores attribution. - Not only is life it too short to pretend outfits that exist to promote a particular agenda are, in fact, neutral arbiters this time around, but doing so is actively empowering bad actors arguing in bad faith. Puzzle me this: a person you know to be con-artist wants you to do something. You can't figure out an angle, but it is a weird-seeming thing to ask. Do you ignore what you know about this person in making your decision?
        johansch 9y ago
        The wonderful thing with multi-user forums like this is the crowd-sourcing aspect.
    - akamaka 9y ago
      I thought the article lacking in some regards, which other commentors have already noted (the general "crime is out of control" narrative without comparison to historical data; implying connection between specific robberies and homelessness without providing supporting evidence). I was curious about who wrote it, and felt it was worthwhile to share what I found. That being said, if one wishes to attack the article, I think a strong argument could be made that this is not real research, but a cherry picking of anecdotes that fit the existing viewpoint of the author. It may be true that crime is out of control in Portland, and that the homeless are to blame, but a more convincing argument for this could be made with real statistical research.
johansch 9y ago
Credible concrete arguments for why some article might be flawed or biased tends to carry a lot more weight than just attacking the place it was published in for its political views.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Why are you taking it as an attack? He's just giving context to the piece.
  - johansch 9y ago
    Perhaps, given the topic, I jumped too quickly into confrontational left-vs-right thinking. Anyhow: I quite dislike it when articles and arguments are dismissed with simple labeling tactics ("they said this other thing before, so what they say now carries no weight"). I should have written "dismissed" rather than "attacked".
    - forkandwait 9y ago
      You shouldn't have written "dismissed" either -- the OP just posted a link and noted that they were conservative. Maybe "implicitly dismissed", but even that is pretty paranoid; though, to be fair, that is probably what the OP meant. (I think the partisanship in this country is shameful, dangerous, and rather silly -- just saying.)
    - akamaka 9y ago
      I thought the article was poorly argued, so I looked up the authors and thought it was worth sharing the info and to let others draw their own conclusions. My own suspicion is that this "research institute" hasn't really done true research into whether crime is out of control and the homeless are to blame. Maybe it really is out of control, but I suspect that the authors don't truly care to investigate, seeing as they simply chose some anecdotes that fit the views they have held for decades. Sorry you're getting downvoted.
      - 9y ago

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

How is this relevant? How does this fact invalidate any of what the article stated?

bitwize 9y ago
Conservative think tanks are well known to lie to promote their agenda.
- devmunchies 9y ago
  That's sound like anything political and not just conservatives. Speaking of conservatives (and to bring things back to the article), I remember reading on HN that salt lake city, Utah is one of the best at handling homelessness.
_jal 9y ago
Funny how attribution brings out defensiveness. Do you also think all bylines should be removed from articles? It doesn't appear to me that the OP was saying anything about invalidation.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  People naturally form us-vs-them tribal mentalities, and the fact that this is the top comment of this post indicates that its a tribal mentality that's leading it to be upvoted. It's like saying on a Roy Moore post that the investigation was carried out by CNBC: it leads to Republicans invalidating any finding of the investigation. This default of ignoring any information from the Other Side is what almost got Roy Moore elected. This us-vs-them mentality needs to be noted. The fact that this comes from a think tank does not immediately mean they don't raise a good point.
  - _jal 9y ago
    I agree that tribal bullshit has hit a dangerous fever pitch. I also agree that the product of think tanks are not inherently incorrect. But, if you wanted to bet me I couldn't guess what Americans For Prosperity thinks of the tax bill without reading anything from them about it, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. You don't fix this by ignoring attribution or yelling at people for noting it. You also don't do so by attacking strawmen.
    - johansch 9y ago
      How about just, you know, addressing the points the article made?
      - _jal 9y ago
        - Because nobody ignores attribution. - Not only is life it too short to pretend outfits that exist to promote a particular agenda are, in fact, neutral arbiters this time around, but doing so is actively empowering bad actors arguing in bad faith. Puzzle me this: a person you know to be con-artist wants you to do something. You can't figure out an angle, but it is a weird-seeming thing to ask. Do you ignore what you know about this person in making your decision?
        johansch 9y ago
        The wonderful thing with multi-user forums like this is the crowd-sourcing aspect.
  - akamaka 9y ago
    I thought the article lacking in some regards, which other commentors have already noted (the general "crime is out of control" narrative without comparison to historical data; implying connection between specific robberies and homelessness without providing supporting evidence). I was curious about who wrote it, and felt it was worthwhile to share what I found. That being said, if one wishes to attack the article, I think a strong argument could be made that this is not real research, but a cherry picking of anecdotes that fit the existing viewpoint of the author. It may be true that crime is out of control in Portland, and that the homeless are to blame, but a more convincing argument for this could be made with real statistical research.

johansch 9y ago

Credible concrete arguments for why some article might be flawed or biased tends to carry a lot more weight than just attacking the place it was published in for its political views.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Why are you taking it as an attack? He's just giving context to the piece.
- johansch 9y ago
  Perhaps, given the topic, I jumped too quickly into confrontational left-vs-right thinking. Anyhow: I quite dislike it when articles and arguments are dismissed with simple labeling tactics ("they said this other thing before, so what they say now carries no weight"). I should have written "dismissed" rather than "attacked".
  - forkandwait 9y ago
    You shouldn't have written "dismissed" either -- the OP just posted a link and noted that they were conservative. Maybe "implicitly dismissed", but even that is pretty paranoid; though, to be fair, that is probably what the OP meant. (I think the partisanship in this country is shameful, dangerous, and rather silly -- just saying.)
  - akamaka 9y ago
    I thought the article was poorly argued, so I looked up the authors and thought it was worth sharing the info and to let others draw their own conclusions. My own suspicion is that this "research institute" hasn't really done true research into whether crime is out of control and the homeless are to blame. Maybe it really is out of control, but I suspect that the authors don't truly care to investigate, seeing as they simply chose some anecdotes that fit the views they have held for decades. Sorry you're getting downvoted.
    - 9y ago