3 ms·

> 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 sayi

> 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
    Can you explain what the thesis is and how this statement validates that?
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      > Can you explain what the thesis is and how this statement validates that? Sure, it is the first sentence in the "Takeaways" section, at the very top of the article. "The rate of murders in the US has gone up at an alarming rate. But, despite a media narrative to the contrary, this is a problem that afflicts Republican-run cities and states as much or more than the Democratic bastions." The comment you are referring to ("No person in their right mind would want to go wandering around the south side of Chicago. That is not a falsehood.") is evidence that the "media narrative" mentioned and referenced in the article has indeed taken hold. Chicago was even one of the examples the article used. Any form of research would quickly identify that the entire South Side of Chicago is not a wasteland where nobody willingly walks around (let alone live). That the commenter felt it was so obviously true speaks to the level of validation.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        I thought you were referring to my comment. It seems that many people would move out of high crime neighborhoods if it was feasible. We did see a large exodus from the cities in general around this time frame, although it's hard to say how much was this or covid as it's likely a combination of many factors. It appears the commenter's statement was simply not granular enough since they grouped the whole Southside together (as the article groups entire cities together, then maybe the article was not granular enough?). They still have a valid point. A rate of 28 is substantially higher to most places in the US. Even the article mentions Chicago as having a real and persistent homicide problem and describes the murder rate as alarming. The commenter didn't say the issue only exists there and admits that it's not just politics, and it would be hard to argue that it's not a blatantly one of the highest rates in the country. If it's a good example of a general area where people wouldn't want to walk around because of a high murder rate, then why not use it?

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
  Can you explain what the thesis is and how this statement validates that?
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > Can you explain what the thesis is and how this statement validates that? Sure, it is the first sentence in the "Takeaways" section, at the very top of the article. "The rate of murders in the US has gone up at an alarming rate. But, despite a media narrative to the contrary, this is a problem that afflicts Republican-run cities and states as much or more than the Democratic bastions." The comment you are referring to ("No person in their right mind would want to go wandering around the south side of Chicago. That is not a falsehood.") is evidence that the "media narrative" mentioned and referenced in the article has indeed taken hold. Chicago was even one of the examples the article used. Any form of research would quickly identify that the entire South Side of Chicago is not a wasteland where nobody willingly walks around (let alone live). That the commenter felt it was so obviously true speaks to the level of validation.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I thought you were referring to my comment. It seems that many people would move out of high crime neighborhoods if it was feasible. We did see a large exodus from the cities in general around this time frame, although it's hard to say how much was this or covid as it's likely a combination of many factors. It appears the commenter's statement was simply not granular enough since they grouped the whole Southside together (as the article groups entire cities together, then maybe the article was not granular enough?). They still have a valid point. A rate of 28 is substantially higher to most places in the US. Even the article mentions Chicago as having a real and persistent homicide problem and describes the murder rate as alarming. The commenter didn't say the issue only exists there and admits that it's not just politics, and it would be hard to argue that it's not a blatantly one of the highest rates in the country. If it's a good example of a general area where people wouldn't want to walk around because of a high murder rate, then why not use it?