5 ms·

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

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.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      > But are those upset people actually questioning their position, or defending it? If they aren't questioning their assumptions, then they are engaging on the wrin > Even the basic premise of the article has been essentially strawmaned - comparing states to cities It doesn't really compare cities to states. It mentions how cities are in states, which we know. It is about how Republicans use crime in cities as a hammer to hit Democratic policies and this data shows that narrative might not reflect reality. > look at the socioeconomic factors at play in the various locations, etc. These are also a function of government in some way, so it's hard to add this to the analysis without biasing the data.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "It is about how Republicans use crime in cities as a hammer to hit Democratic policies and this data shows that narrative might not reflect reality." If it's not looking at cities, then how can it refute that claim? Is it not possible that city murder rates drag up the murder rate for an entire state? Just looking at the top state for murder rate we see the state level is about 12, while the first 3 cities in murder rate are all over 30 and run by Democrats. I'm not saying that this validates Republicans positions, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence against it. My whole point is that this is a distraction.
        long_time_gone 5y ago
        > I'm not saying that this validates Republicans positions, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence against it. But it does. It shows that Democratic run states (California, New York, Illinois, Washington, etc.) have lower murder rates than Republican run states (Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, etc.) REGARDLESS of what the murder rate is in cities (of which Democratic-run states states tend to have more of). None of the most urbanized states (NJ, CA, MA, NV, etc.) are in the top-10 murder for states [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...
        5y ago
- cbsmith 5y ago
  No, the article is invalidating people who hold an existing position. "The increase in murders is not a liberal cities problem but a national problem." It'd be even more convincing if they were able to solve all murder cases and prevent murder from ever happening again, but setting the bar there in order to recognize that a false narrative is not actually supported by the data is an unreasonable standard.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    If that's what they are doing, then wouldn't the best thing for the article to do is show murder rates for the cities in a state, grouped by political leadership, as compared to each group as well as to the state rate? I mean, I could play devils advocate here and say that the reason the 1# state (LA at 12) is so high is that the cities drag up the state rate (top three cities have rates over 30 with Democrat leadership). I'm not saying that validates Republican positions, but the article certainly doesn't refute this. If that's the goal of the article, then it needs to provide the proper argument to invalidate that. Otherwise it seems like it's just obscuring the conversation through what is essentially a strawman argument (in the context of the liberal cities crime/murder argument that its targeting).
    - cbsmith 5y ago
      I'm not going to defend the quality of the analysis, but I'm not sure where the "LA as #1 at 12" is coming from. In the article LA's per capita murder rate is 15.79 per 100,000, and it's #2. In general though, to support your devil's advocate thesis, you'd expect the states with the largest percentage of the population residing in urban areas would be the states with the highest murder rates. That would not be MS, LA, KY, AL and MO. So if the urban population is causal, you'd have to explain why the top states aren't NY, NJ, CA, MA, and NV. Perhaps there's a case to be made that urban Democratic leadership mixed with Republican state and Federal leadership was the problem, but that seems like a pretty complex relationship to establish, and doesn't align with the narrative.
      - giantg2 5y ago

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.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > But are those upset people actually questioning their position, or defending it? If they aren't questioning their assumptions, then they are engaging on the wrin > Even the basic premise of the article has been essentially strawmaned - comparing states to cities It doesn't really compare cities to states. It mentions how cities are in states, which we know. It is about how Republicans use crime in cities as a hammer to hit Democratic policies and this data shows that narrative might not reflect reality. > look at the socioeconomic factors at play in the various locations, etc. These are also a function of government in some way, so it's hard to add this to the analysis without biasing the data.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "It is about how Republicans use crime in cities as a hammer to hit Democratic policies and this data shows that narrative might not reflect reality." If it's not looking at cities, then how can it refute that claim? Is it not possible that city murder rates drag up the murder rate for an entire state? Just looking at the top state for murder rate we see the state level is about 12, while the first 3 cities in murder rate are all over 30 and run by Democrats. I'm not saying that this validates Republicans positions, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence against it. My whole point is that this is a distraction.
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        > I'm not saying that this validates Republicans positions, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence against it. But it does. It shows that Democratic run states (California, New York, Illinois, Washington, etc.) have lower murder rates than Republican run states (Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, etc.) REGARDLESS of what the murder rate is in cities (of which Democratic-run states states tend to have more of). None of the most urbanized states (NJ, CA, MA, NV, etc.) are in the top-10 murder for states [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...
        5y ago
cbsmith 5y ago
No, the article is invalidating people who hold an existing position. "The increase in murders is not a liberal cities problem but a national problem." It'd be even more convincing if they were able to solve all murder cases and prevent murder from ever happening again, but setting the bar there in order to recognize that a false narrative is not actually supported by the data is an unreasonable standard.
- giantg2 5y ago
  If that's what they are doing, then wouldn't the best thing for the article to do is show murder rates for the cities in a state, grouped by political leadership, as compared to each group as well as to the state rate? I mean, I could play devils advocate here and say that the reason the 1# state (LA at 12) is so high is that the cities drag up the state rate (top three cities have rates over 30 with Democrat leadership). I'm not saying that validates Republican positions, but the article certainly doesn't refute this. If that's the goal of the article, then it needs to provide the proper argument to invalidate that. Otherwise it seems like it's just obscuring the conversation through what is essentially a strawman argument (in the context of the liberal cities crime/murder argument that its targeting).
  - cbsmith 5y ago
    I'm not going to defend the quality of the analysis, but I'm not sure where the "LA as #1 at 12" is coming from. In the article LA's per capita murder rate is 15.79 per 100,000, and it's #2. In general though, to support your devil's advocate thesis, you'd expect the states with the largest percentage of the population residing in urban areas would be the states with the highest murder rates. That would not be MS, LA, KY, AL and MO. So if the urban population is causal, you'd have to explain why the top states aren't NY, NJ, CA, MA, and NV. Perhaps there's a case to be made that urban Democratic leadership mixed with Republican state and Federal leadership was the problem, but that seems like a pretty complex relationship to establish, and doesn't align with the narrative.
    - giantg2 5y ago