3 ms·

You've leapt into another argument, ignoring the whole thesis trap you tried to set earlier. Now, it's about "granularity" and "moving out of neighborhoods" and

You've leapt into another argument, ignoring the whole thesis trap you tried to set earlier. Now, it's about "granularity" and "moving out of neighborhoods" and "large exodus from cities" and anything else you can pivot towards. It's ok to admit that you were never interested in discussing the actual analysis in the report because you refuse to accept it's validity. Instead of going around-and-around, we can just agree on that. < (as the article groups entire cities together, then maybe the article was not granular enough?) The article wasn't making a point about a specific city or a specific part of a city, like the commenter (incorrectly) was, so they wouldn't have that burden. I'm not sure why it is so hard to accept what the report is rather than argue about what it isn't. > Even the article mentions Chicago as having a real and persistent homicide problem and describes the murder rate as alarming. As I said in my comment. Nobody has ever disputed that, to say otherwise is yet another strawman. I live in Chicago, which is why I tune into opinions on the city built entirely on assumptions (like the one the article mentions and that commenter displayed).

giantg2 5y ago
"You've leapt into another argument, ignoring the whole thesis trap you tried to set earlier." What trap? I was genuinely confused as to how you thought my comment reinforced the thesis, or that you were using a different thesis than I was (there is a slight difference, but minor). What argument did leap from, and to what new one? "Even the article mentions Chicago as having a real and persistent homicide problem and describes the murder rate as alarming. As I said in my comment. Nobody has ever disputed that, to say otherwise is yet another strawman." Ok, then what was the point of your argument attacking the commenter for saying (not so nicely, but you didn't take issue with that part) that Southside has a lot of murders? "It's ok to admit that you were never interested in discussing the actual analysis in the report because you refuse to accept it's validity." I am interested in discussing the actual analysis. You can look at my other comments relating to the analysis (like why Trump vs governors, why are we looking at party and not policies, etc). Not sure why you're attacking me like this. I am interested in the actual subject of how policies and socioeconomic factors affect crime.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > I am interested in the actual subject of how policies and socioeconomic factors affect crime. Nobody attacked you, no need for that performance. Again, this is article about the prevailing political and media narrative of murder in Democratic-led locations being (at least partially) incorrect. If you want a study about how specific policies impact murder rates, this is not that study. No amount of complaining about this actual study will make it that hypothetical study. In fact, I tried to find those studies for you in another thread and provided 3 examples of studies that connect actual policies to crime/murder. You refused to accept that information and your response was another string of questions and challenges. That leads me to believe (again) that you aren't interested in an actual discussion, but merely searching for more data to support your existing conclusion.

giantg2 5y ago

"You've leapt into another argument, ignoring the whole thesis trap you tried to set earlier." What trap? I was genuinely confused as to how you thought my comment reinforced the thesis, or that you were using a different thesis than I was (there is a slight difference, but minor). What argument did leap from, and to what new one? "Even the article mentions Chicago as having a real and persistent homicide problem and describes the murder rate as alarming. As I said in my comment. Nobody has ever disputed that, to say otherwise is yet another strawman." Ok, then what was the point of your argument attacking the commenter for saying (not so nicely, but you didn't take issue with that part) that Southside has a lot of murders? "It's ok to admit that you were never interested in discussing the actual analysis in the report because you refuse to accept it's validity." I am interested in discussing the actual analysis. You can look at my other comments relating to the analysis (like why Trump vs governors, why are we looking at party and not policies, etc). Not sure why you're attacking me like this. I am interested in the actual subject of how policies and socioeconomic factors affect crime.

long_time_gone 5y ago
> I am interested in the actual subject of how policies and socioeconomic factors affect crime. Nobody attacked you, no need for that performance. Again, this is article about the prevailing political and media narrative of murder in Democratic-led locations being (at least partially) incorrect. If you want a study about how specific policies impact murder rates, this is not that study. No amount of complaining about this actual study will make it that hypothetical study. In fact, I tried to find those studies for you in another thread and provided 3 examples of studies that connect actual policies to crime/murder. You refused to accept that information and your response was another string of questions and challenges. That leads me to believe (again) that you aren't interested in an actual discussion, but merely searching for more data to support your existing conclusion.