3 ms·

> What I mean is that if policies are are supposedly linked to increases in crime, then we should be evaluating them at a policy level, not a partisan level. Y

> What I mean is that if policies are are supposedly linked to increases in crime, then we should be evaluating them at a policy level, not a partisan level. Yes, I would totally agree, but that isn't the nature of the prevailing narrative. > The surface debate is just a bunch of partisan finger pointing and strawmanning (especially for the point of politicians getting their comments on the news), which covers up the real debate about underlying policy. Bingo! You've hit the central point of the article. > I don't know, but I feel like wanting to have articles that report meaningful information and analysis on the policies is not confirmation bias, but a desire to have informed debate about things that actually matter. Agreed, wanting to have more meaningful information & analysis is not about confirmation bias. Wanting to have more meaningful information & analysis before accepting/repeating a narrative is confirmation bias. The article isn't trying to suggest that Republicans or their policies are causing an increase in crime. It's trying to show that if you're looking at national trends in the data, it doesn't point to anything supporting the prevailing narrative. The natural next thought is, "what is the data supporting the prevailing narrative?", and the answer to that ought to raise at least as many questions about the prevailing narrative as it does this article.

giantg2 5y ago
"Bingo! You've hit the central point of the article." I'm sorry, but it doesn't read like that for me. If it were really getting at the idea of there being underlying issues then I would expect there to be investigation of them to further support that point. If it's trying to call out the partisan finger pointing and use of "convenient" data, then I don't see why they would also engage in those actions (doesn't seem like satire to me).
- cbsmith 5y ago
  "I'm sorry, but it doesn't read like that for me. If it were really getting at the idea of there being underlying issues then I would expect there to be investigation of them to further support that point." Umm... the point of the article is about "the surface debate is just a bunchy of partisan finger pointing and strawmanning (especially for the point of politicians getting their comments on the news), which covers up the real debate about underlying policy", then the "problem" would be an investigation of the surface debate, which is what you see here. One can erect a hundred strawmen with a fraction of the resources needed to identify and isolate, let alone communicate the complexity of the underlying issues. Heck, just demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting a strawman requires far more resources. I would argue demanding a detailed investigation about the underlying issues in order to dismiss the partisan finger pointing and strawmanning is a really good way to ensure that the debate is dominated by partisan finger pointing and strawmanning. If you're wondering why the discourse is shaped this way, you're demonstrating the cause. It should be enough to say, "You're right about something here. There is an increase in the murder rate, but it's broad national phenomenon whose underlying cause is not understood; your claims don't even fit the shape of the problem, let alone have credible supporting evidence about an underlying cause". That should be enough for the the narrative to be dismissed. Unfortunately, it's not; thanks to confirmation bias people are much more likely to accept claims with weak or even no evidence that align with their expectations, and will insist on a far higher standard of evidence for anything that doesn't align with their expectations, even if it is simply pointing out that their expectations aren't well supported.

giantg2 5y ago

"Bingo! You've hit the central point of the article." I'm sorry, but it doesn't read like that for me. If it were really getting at the idea of there being underlying issues then I would expect there to be investigation of them to further support that point. If it's trying to call out the partisan finger pointing and use of "convenient" data, then I don't see why they would also engage in those actions (doesn't seem like satire to me).

cbsmith 5y ago
"I'm sorry, but it doesn't read like that for me. If it were really getting at the idea of there being underlying issues then I would expect there to be investigation of them to further support that point." Umm... the point of the article is about "the surface debate is just a bunchy of partisan finger pointing and strawmanning (especially for the point of politicians getting their comments on the news), which covers up the real debate about underlying policy", then the "problem" would be an investigation of the surface debate, which is what you see here. One can erect a hundred strawmen with a fraction of the resources needed to identify and isolate, let alone communicate the complexity of the underlying issues. Heck, just demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting a strawman requires far more resources. I would argue demanding a detailed investigation about the underlying issues in order to dismiss the partisan finger pointing and strawmanning is a really good way to ensure that the debate is dominated by partisan finger pointing and strawmanning. If you're wondering why the discourse is shaped this way, you're demonstrating the cause. It should be enough to say, "You're right about something here. There is an increase in the murder rate, but it's broad national phenomenon whose underlying cause is not understood; your claims don't even fit the shape of the problem, let alone have credible supporting evidence about an underlying cause". That should be enough for the the narrative to be dismissed. Unfortunately, it's not; thanks to confirmation bias people are much more likely to accept claims with weak or even no evidence that align with their expectations, and will insist on a far higher standard of evidence for anything that doesn't align with their expectations, even if it is simply pointing out that their expectations aren't well supported.