8 ms·

This is the most pathetic attempt to lie with statistics I have seen all week, congrats! JFC, can you not even be bothered to read the stat you tried to pick t

by evgen 5y ago

This is the most pathetic attempt to lie with statistics I have seen all week, congrats! JFC, can you not even be bothered to read the stat you tried to pick to prove your point? The rate according to data you provided was 20.3/100k. The murder rate is proportional to population density across the country as a general rule, so the 'US average' is a bullshit stat to try to use for comparison with a large city. If you compare Newark to its own past rates they are currently at a rate that was last seen in the 60s (this period of low homicide and crime rates was present _before_ covid, so do not bother trying some sort of 'all because of lockdown' lie.) While the general trend in large US cities is downward, Newark started from a higher rate and has dropped significantly faster than comparable cities. I can see why you would create a throwaway account if you are not even going to be bothered trying to provide a truthful stat.

DenisM 5y ago
> can you not even be bothered to read the stat you tried to pick to prove your point Don’t do this here. The HN rules specifically discourage it: Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
- evgen 5y ago
  I did not claim they did not read the article, I explicitly called out the fact that the source they reference in support of a numerical claim actually said something completely different. Please do not try to be a pseudo-mod, we already have people with that task and they seem to be doing a better job of it than you.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
monoideism 5y ago
Why reply like with insults like this ("pathetic", etc), and most of all, why did people flag the comment? Assuming your own stats are correct, you refuted his comment really well, and using abusive language only diminishes your response. If HN is going to actually engage in these political debates (and I question whether it's wise to do so for the community), then people are going to have to stop flagging comments that go against whatever they believe, and just refute them like you just did (using your facts, not your insults). If you believe (like I do, increasingly) that HN should avoid the political topics, then flag the whole article, not individual comments. PS: the reason why people use throwaways for unpopular opinions is because they are well aware that there's a large group of people out there who will go after their jobs.
- tomerico 5y ago
  I agree that the tone of replies matter, but flagging comments spreading misinformation seems like a positive thing.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Klinky 5y ago
  It's not a different belief, it was a flat out lie and spreading of misinformation, their own source doesn't even back them up. Stop pushing a narrative that misinformation should be "equally considered" or is "just another point of view".
  - monoideism 5y ago
    This is where you and I disagree, and frankly why our country will continue to decline into more polarization and violence. I believe that you convince people that they're wrong by making a reasoned argument. You seem to believe that you convince people that they're wrong by shutting them up, and censoring them. And as a free human being, I'll push whichever POV I so choose.
    - Klinky 5y ago
      If you make a statement and provide a source that contradicts your statement, yes, you should be questioned on why you even provided that source in the first place, and if you actually read/comprehended it. That isn't "shutting them up", they invalidated their own claims with their own source.
      - monoideism 5y ago
        Question? Absolutely. I encourage respectful questioning and refuting. Flagging and censoring? (cdot2 had been flagged into invisibility until he was unflagged) "paradox of tolerance"[1]? Nope 1. People should read _Open Society and Its Enemies_ before making that argument, because how they're applying it is not what Popper argued.
ccsnags 5y ago
I appreciate the clarification. I do find it interesting that population density is a factor for understanding these rates over time. Pardon my ignorance, as I am just trying to understand this (not my field of expertise). What is the relationship with violent crime rates and population density? That seems to be an important factor in this that isn’t getting highlighted enough. Are we jamming too many people into a small area? I am asking because I am from a large city. I moved outside of the metro area years ago for work and found it to be refreshing, even though I first hated it and found myself stereotyping these people as ignorant bumpkins. After I got over my initial prejudice (not something I am proud to have felt), this place is more home than any place I’ve ever lived. It’s an anecdote, but I have experienced a major benefit to living in a place where humans aren’t stacked on top of each other like factory-farmed chickens. I’ve never been put in a position to have to fight for my life out here. Could population density be a factor for increased crime rates? Could we help people by spreading them out a little bit and giving them space to live their lives? Access to nature, etc. Is this a housing problem? I think that more people could move out of the cities if we broke down the stereotypes and made sure to enforce equal housing rights. This has kind of been a pet theory of mine but, again, I am no expert in this field and I only bring it up here to see what people with better info think about it.
dang 5y ago
Reacting with this kind of attack and breaking the site guidelines this badly is not cool. It destroys the commons and discredits your argument. Supposing your argument to be correct, that is particularly bad, because now you're discrediting the very truth you're advocating for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Not only does that not help, it causes harm. If you're in possession of more of the truth than others, you have a responsibility to handle it better. On this site, that means responding to inaccurate information with better information and explaining why it's better without attacks, swipes, or putdowns. Here's one edit that takes all of that out of your comment: The rate according to data you provided was 20.3/100k. The murder rate is proportional to population density across the country as a general rule, so the 'US average' is a misleading stat to try to use for comparison with a large city. If you compare Newark to its own past rates they are currently at a rate that was last seen in the 60s (this period of low homicide and crime rates was present _before_ covid). While the general trend in large US cities is downward, Newark started from a higher rate and has dropped significantly faster than comparable cities. That would have been a fine post, much more effective in persuading readers, and without provoking the tedious off-topic flamewar that we got below. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the intended spirit of the site? We'd appreciate it.

by evgen 5y ago

DenisM 5y ago

> can you not even be bothered to read the stat you tried to pick to prove your point Don’t do this here. The HN rules specifically discourage it: Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

evgen 5y ago
I did not claim they did not read the article, I explicitly called out the fact that the source they reference in support of a numerical claim actually said something completely different. Please do not try to be a pseudo-mod, we already have people with that task and they seem to be doing a better job of it than you.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

monoideism 5y ago

Why reply like with insults like this ("pathetic", etc), and most of all, why did people flag the comment? Assuming your own stats are correct, you refuted his comment really well, and using abusive language only diminishes your response. If HN is going to actually engage in these political debates (and I question whether it's wise to do so for the community), then people are going to have to stop flagging comments that go against whatever they believe, and just refute them like you just did (using your facts, not your insults). If you believe (like I do, increasingly) that HN should avoid the political topics, then flag the whole article, not individual comments. PS: the reason why people use throwaways for unpopular opinions is because they are well aware that there's a large group of people out there who will go after their jobs.

tomerico 5y ago
I agree that the tone of replies matter, but flagging comments spreading misinformation seems like a positive thing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Klinky 5y ago
It's not a different belief, it was a flat out lie and spreading of misinformation, their own source doesn't even back them up. Stop pushing a narrative that misinformation should be "equally considered" or is "just another point of view".
- monoideism 5y ago
  This is where you and I disagree, and frankly why our country will continue to decline into more polarization and violence. I believe that you convince people that they're wrong by making a reasoned argument. You seem to believe that you convince people that they're wrong by shutting them up, and censoring them. And as a free human being, I'll push whichever POV I so choose.
  - Klinky 5y ago
    If you make a statement and provide a source that contradicts your statement, yes, you should be questioned on why you even provided that source in the first place, and if you actually read/comprehended it. That isn't "shutting them up", they invalidated their own claims with their own source.
    - monoideism 5y ago
      Question? Absolutely. I encourage respectful questioning and refuting. Flagging and censoring? (cdot2 had been flagged into invisibility until he was unflagged) "paradox of tolerance"[1]? Nope 1. People should read _Open Society and Its Enemies_ before making that argument, because how they're applying it is not what Popper argued.

ccsnags 5y ago

I appreciate the clarification. I do find it interesting that population density is a factor for understanding these rates over time. Pardon my ignorance, as I am just trying to understand this (not my field of expertise). What is the relationship with violent crime rates and population density? That seems to be an important factor in this that isn’t getting highlighted enough. Are we jamming too many people into a small area? I am asking because I am from a large city. I moved outside of the metro area years ago for work and found it to be refreshing, even though I first hated it and found myself stereotyping these people as ignorant bumpkins. After I got over my initial prejudice (not something I am proud to have felt), this place is more home than any place I’ve ever lived. It’s an anecdote, but I have experienced a major benefit to living in a place where humans aren’t stacked on top of each other like factory-farmed chickens. I’ve never been put in a position to have to fight for my life out here. Could population density be a factor for increased crime rates? Could we help people by spreading them out a little bit and giving them space to live their lives? Access to nature, etc. Is this a housing problem? I think that more people could move out of the cities if we broke down the stereotypes and made sure to enforce equal housing rights. This has kind of been a pet theory of mine but, again, I am no expert in this field and I only bring it up here to see what people with better info think about it.

dang 5y ago

Reacting with this kind of attack and breaking the site guidelines this badly is not cool. It destroys the commons and discredits your argument. Supposing your argument to be correct, that is particularly bad, because now you're discrediting the very truth you're advocating for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Not only does that not help, it causes harm. If you're in possession of more of the truth than others, you have a responsibility to handle it better. On this site, that means responding to inaccurate information with better information and explaining why it's better without attacks, swipes, or putdowns. Here's one edit that takes all of that out of your comment: The rate according to data you provided was 20.3/100k. The murder rate is proportional to population density across the country as a general rule, so the 'US average' is a misleading stat to try to use for comparison with a large city. If you compare Newark to its own past rates they are currently at a rate that was last seen in the 60s (this period of low homicide and crime rates was present _before_ covid). While the general trend in large US cities is downward, Newark started from a higher rate and has dropped significantly faster than comparable cities. That would have been a fine post, much more effective in persuading readers, and without provoking the tedious off-topic flamewar that we got below. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the intended spirit of the site? We'd appreciate it.