8 ms·

Does everything need to be politicised like this? There's a rural/urban divide in the US, and it's well known that this divide coincides with the political divi

Does everything need to be politicised like this? There's a rural/urban divide in the US, and it's well known that this divide coincides with the political divide. It's an interesting data point that rural states have seen higher murder rates than urban ones, but it doesn't necessitate garbage rhetoric like > A more accurate conclusion from the data is that Republicans do a far better job blaming others for high murder rates than actually reducing high murder rates. no matter how much you prepare it by straw-manning that the other side blames Democratic leadership for the same thing. If you want to link crime rates to political leadership in some kind of causal fashion, you need to at least try controlling for basic things like rural vs urban areas, or domestic violence vs street crime.

alexk307 5y ago
I think this is more of a counter-example of why politicizing murder and lawlessness is a stupid idea. The conservatives in the US constantly bash Democratic ran cities as murderous hell-holes and places no person in their right mind would want to go. But in reality, it's just more falsehoods; the issue is far more complex than just correlating your governor or mayor's political affiliation.
- giantg2 5y ago
  If this was actually a counter example, wouldn't they be looking at the cities within the state as well as distribution throughout the state? For example, rural PA is much different than Philly, Pittsburgh, and other cities in leadership and policy. Not sure about murder rate, but would guess it's mostly similar. That said, it would be much better if they actually got into the causes or contributors, like the various socioeconomic factors that correlate with murder/crime.
- sudden_dystopia 5y ago
  No person in their right mind would want to go wandering around the south side of Chicago. That is not a falsehood. It is more complex than politics, but the murderous hell hole part is at least partially true.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > No person in their right mind would want to go wandering around the south side of Chicago. Tell me you've never been on the Southside of Chicago without saying you've never been on the Southside of Chicago. Nobody ever walks around UofC campus, or to White Sox games, or the Museum of Science and Industry, or Beverly, or Mt. Greenwood, or Illinois Tech, or Chinatown, or Big Marsh, or Little Village, or Pilsen, or Promontory Point, or any of the many beaches, etc. Good point. > That is not a falsehood. Yes it is, you have no idea what you are talking about.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      Right? I mean, I've never even been to Chicago myself, but one glance at Wikipedia[0]... >South Side neighborhoods such as Armour Square, Back of the Yards, Bridgeport, and Pullman host more blue collar and middle-class residents, while Hyde Park, the Jackson Park Highlands District, Kenwood, Beverly, Mount Greenwood, and west Morgan Park feature affluent and upper-middle class residents. ... and I can't help but be incredibly confused as to why those "affluent and upper-middle class residents" would choose to live in an area where they wouldn't "in their right mind ... want to go wandering around" in. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Side,_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Side,_Chicago
    - giantg2 5y ago
      No experience with Chicago here. I can say that the general sentiment that there are areas that you don't want to be in, especially after dark, is a valid one. Personal experiences validate this for areas like north Philly. But to your point, some areas within those general areas are not too bad, like Temple's campus.
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        But the statement itself essentially proves the thesis of the report.
        giantg2 5y ago
gameswithgo 5y ago
It would be good to do a study that looks at "what are the causal factors behind crime" and many people do this. When existing political talking points include "liberal ideas are causing crime to rise" then an article like this one is also a valid thing to look at.
- giantg2 5y ago
  True, but it would be more convincing if they did provide the actual factors behind the murders. Without showing the real answers, this article is more about validating people who hold an existing position rather than trying to spread knowledge to, or convince, people holding a neutral or contrary position.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > Without showing the real answers, this article is more about validating people who hold an existing position rather than trying to spread knowledge to, or convince, people holding a neutral or contrary position. I think this is exactly the opposite of the takeaway. Republicans have been promoting the idea that Democrats are weak on crime and their city's are overrun with murders. They have been running on this message since at least Reagan in the 80s. This challenges that existing position with actual data about states. It might not be as deep as you like, but it certainly challenges the existing narrative (that's why you see so many people upset in the comments).
    - giantg2 5y ago
      But are those upset people actually questioning their position, or defending it? Will this lead to change or better understanding? I don't think it will. Even the basic premise of the article has been essentially strawmaned - comparing states to cities. Let's look at the distribution throughout the states, look at the socioeconomic factors at play in the various locations, etc. So yeah, it's not as deep as I'd like. It seems like there's not much actual information in the article other than 80% of the top 10 states for murder rate voted for Trump, which I don't find useful or actionable.
gzer0 5y ago
> If you want to link crime rates to political leadership in some kind of causal fashion, you need to at least try controlling for basic things like rural vs urban areas, or domestic violence vs street crime. Why would they control for domestic violence or street crime at all? This piece is strictly talking about the rate of murders. Your proposal is not relevant to this discussion. If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't. Dismissing this entire argument simply because "rural/urban" is quite frankly, deceitful and serves to help no one.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't. I think this is the part that is causing the malfunction. None of the traditional arguments work against this simple data set.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- giantg2 5y ago
  "If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't." Why would this be shocking? The measure is per capita. I can see why it could lead to higher numbers within a small geographic area. But Why would density lead to higher murder rate?
  - cbsmith 5y ago
    "But Why would density lead to higher murder rate?" It's about opportunity. A kleptomaniac is going to find they steal left often when they're in the middle of a 100 acre property that they own than in a dense apartment complex. One of the most significant criteria for committing murder (as opposed to suicide) is other people. You can have all the murderous intent in the world, but if there is no one else around, you're unlikely to pull it off. On the other hand, even if you don't generally have murderous intent, if a place is packed with other people, that increases the chances that for one reason or another you'll develop murderous intent towards one of them.
olsonjeffery 5y ago
This piece simply wasn’t written for you. It’s authored by a centrist Democratic think tank and it has a political agenda: to spur new messaging from Dem officials to counter the soft-on-crime narratives in the media, a perennial issue for Democratic politicians in the United States.

alexk307 5y ago

I think this is more of a counter-example of why politicizing murder and lawlessness is a stupid idea. The conservatives in the US constantly bash Democratic ran cities as murderous hell-holes and places no person in their right mind would want to go. But in reality, it's just more falsehoods; the issue is far more complex than just correlating your governor or mayor's political affiliation.

giantg2 5y ago
If this was actually a counter example, wouldn't they be looking at the cities within the state as well as distribution throughout the state? For example, rural PA is much different than Philly, Pittsburgh, and other cities in leadership and policy. Not sure about murder rate, but would guess it's mostly similar. That said, it would be much better if they actually got into the causes or contributors, like the various socioeconomic factors that correlate with murder/crime.
sudden_dystopia 5y ago
No person in their right mind would want to go wandering around the south side of Chicago. That is not a falsehood. It is more complex than politics, but the murderous hell hole part is at least partially true.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > No person in their right mind would want to go wandering around the south side of Chicago. Tell me you've never been on the Southside of Chicago without saying you've never been on the Southside of Chicago. Nobody ever walks around UofC campus, or to White Sox games, or the Museum of Science and Industry, or Beverly, or Mt. Greenwood, or Illinois Tech, or Chinatown, or Big Marsh, or Little Village, or Pilsen, or Promontory Point, or any of the many beaches, etc. Good point. > That is not a falsehood. Yes it is, you have no idea what you are talking about.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    Right? I mean, I've never even been to Chicago myself, but one glance at Wikipedia[0]... >South Side neighborhoods such as Armour Square, Back of the Yards, Bridgeport, and Pullman host more blue collar and middle-class residents, while Hyde Park, the Jackson Park Highlands District, Kenwood, Beverly, Mount Greenwood, and west Morgan Park feature affluent and upper-middle class residents. ... and I can't help but be incredibly confused as to why those "affluent and upper-middle class residents" would choose to live in an area where they wouldn't "in their right mind ... want to go wandering around" in. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Side,_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Side,_Chicago
  - giantg2 5y ago
    No experience with Chicago here. I can say that the general sentiment that there are areas that you don't want to be in, especially after dark, is a valid one. Personal experiences validate this for areas like north Philly. But to your point, some areas within those general areas are not too bad, like Temple's campus.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      But the statement itself essentially proves the thesis of the report.
      - giantg2 5y ago

gameswithgo 5y ago

It would be good to do a study that looks at "what are the causal factors behind crime" and many people do this. When existing political talking points include "liberal ideas are causing crime to rise" then an article like this one is also a valid thing to look at.

giantg2 5y ago
True, but it would be more convincing if they did provide the actual factors behind the murders. Without showing the real answers, this article is more about validating people who hold an existing position rather than trying to spread knowledge to, or convince, people holding a neutral or contrary position.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > Without showing the real answers, this article is more about validating people who hold an existing position rather than trying to spread knowledge to, or convince, people holding a neutral or contrary position. I think this is exactly the opposite of the takeaway. Republicans have been promoting the idea that Democrats are weak on crime and their city's are overrun with murders. They have been running on this message since at least Reagan in the 80s. This challenges that existing position with actual data about states. It might not be as deep as you like, but it certainly challenges the existing narrative (that's why you see so many people upset in the comments).
  - giantg2 5y ago
    But are those upset people actually questioning their position, or defending it? Will this lead to change or better understanding? I don't think it will. Even the basic premise of the article has been essentially strawmaned - comparing states to cities. Let's look at the distribution throughout the states, look at the socioeconomic factors at play in the various locations, etc. So yeah, it's not as deep as I'd like. It seems like there's not much actual information in the article other than 80% of the top 10 states for murder rate voted for Trump, which I don't find useful or actionable.

gzer0 5y ago

> If you want to link crime rates to political leadership in some kind of causal fashion, you need to at least try controlling for basic things like rural vs urban areas, or domestic violence vs street crime. Why would they control for domestic violence or street crime at all? This piece is strictly talking about the rate of murders. Your proposal is not relevant to this discussion. If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't. Dismissing this entire argument simply because "rural/urban" is quite frankly, deceitful and serves to help no one.

long_time_gone 5y ago
> If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't. I think this is the part that is causing the malfunction. None of the traditional arguments work against this simple data set.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
giantg2 5y ago
"If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't." Why would this be shocking? The measure is per capita. I can see why it could lead to higher numbers within a small geographic area. But Why would density lead to higher murder rate?
- cbsmith 5y ago
  "But Why would density lead to higher murder rate?" It's about opportunity. A kleptomaniac is going to find they steal left often when they're in the middle of a 100 acre property that they own than in a dense apartment complex. One of the most significant criteria for committing murder (as opposed to suicide) is other people. You can have all the murderous intent in the world, but if there is no one else around, you're unlikely to pull it off. On the other hand, even if you don't generally have murderous intent, if a place is packed with other people, that increases the chances that for one reason or another you'll develop murderous intent towards one of them.

olsonjeffery 5y ago

This piece simply wasn’t written for you. It’s authored by a centrist Democratic think tank and it has a political agenda: to spur new messaging from Dem officials to counter the soft-on-crime narratives in the media, a perennial issue for Democratic politicians in the United States.