https://abc7ny.com/newark-crime-rate-murders-city-of-new-jer...
You mean the response to the pandemic, not the pandemic itself.
If there were no discernable response to the pandemic from any organized institution in society there is a pretty good chance the pandemic itself could be blamed for a /lot/ of terrible things.
I think this is the point GP's making.
JFC, can you not even be bothered to read the stat you tried to pick to prove your point? The rate according to data you provided was 20.3/100k. The murder rate is proportional to population density across the country as a general rule, so the 'US average' is a bullshit stat to try to use for comparison with a large city. If you compare Newark to its own past rates they are currently at a rate that was last seen in the 60s (this period of low homicide and crime rates was present _before_ covid, so do not bother trying some sort of 'all because of lockdown' lie.) While the general trend in large US cities is downward, Newark started from a higher rate and has dropped significantly faster than comparable cities.
I can see why you would create a throwaway account if you are not even going to be bothered trying to provide a truthful stat.
The rate according to data you provided was 20.3/100k. The murder rate is proportional to population density across the country as a general rule, so the 'US average' is a misleading stat to try to use for comparison with a large city. If you compare Newark to its own past rates they are currently at a rate that was last seen in the 60s (this period of low homicide and crime rates was present _before_ covid). While the general trend in large US cities is downward, Newark started from a higher rate and has dropped significantly faster than comparable cities.
That would have been a fine post, much more effective in persuading readers, and without provoking the tedious off-topic flamewar that we got below. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the intended spirit of the site? We'd appreciate it.
If HN is going to actually engage in these political debates (and I question whether it's wise to do so for the community), then people are going to have to stop flagging comments that go against whatever they believe, and just refute them like you just did (using your facts, not your insults).
If you believe (like I do, increasingly) that HN should avoid the political topics, then flag the whole article, not individual comments.
PS: the reason why people use throwaways for unpopular opinions is because they are well aware that there's a large group of people out there who will go after their jobs.
Instead, allow the incorrect statement to be contrasted with correct information.
Would you still argue that it's enough to just correct those lies? What about if the person isn't just a single person but a group.
Also, I hope you do realise the irony of arguing by calling someone's opinion gestapo tactics.
That's exactly what the person replying did.
I believe that you convince people that they're wrong by making a reasoned argument. You seem to believe that you convince people that they're wrong by shutting them up, and censoring them.
And as a free human being, I'll push whichever POV I so choose.
Absolutely. I encourage respectful questioning and refuting.
Flagging and censoring? (cdot2 had been flagged into invisibility until he was unflagged) "paradox of tolerance"[1]?
Nope
1. People should read _Open Society and Its Enemies_ before making that argument, because how they're applying it is not what Popper argued.
I don't think an "open society" has ever actually existed or is even possible. All freedoms are measured in degrees based on the society. "Open society" likely leads more to vacuums filled by whoever has the best propaganda. George Soros, one of the bigger proponents of Popper, what with his Open Society Foundation inspired by Popper's works, has noted that deceptive modern advertising and propaganda casts doubts on the viability of Popper's vision of an open society[1]. However, Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist attempting to suppress conservative viewpoints, and is often the target of misinformation conspiracy theory campaigns himself.
How much tolerance must we show? "The sky is purple"? "2+2=5"? Society must acknowledge these viewpoints? The mere act of acknowledging them as "viable alternative viewpoints" lends them credibility, which only festers more misinformation. It feels like as of late there has been increased pressure by certain groups to recategorize repugnant viewpoints as not being repugnant, but simply "a different perspective, worthy of tolerance and legitimacy".
1.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/11/frompo...
Those are all very different words. And you do the same below when you mix up "tolerate" and "legitimize". Are you trying to confuse the debate? To be clear, I'm solely arguing for tolerate and not censor, not any of the other things. And wow, looking at that comment that was flagged, I can't comprehend how you would believe it's so repugnant that it's worthy of censoring and suppression.
> Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist
He's the target of unfortunate conspiracy theories, but I want to get this straight: you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist? Do you also not think the Koch brothers are libertarian propagandists? Of course, they all are!
But yeah, I strongly disagree. I think censoring people who disagree, combined with the power and income inequality that was created by the plutocrats, will together kill our country. I don't want to give away my identity since I'm aware there are lots of people who would try to get me fired for disagreeing with them, but I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction.
Not really. You are arguing that misinformation needs to have a place on this platform, and have a chance to be heard. Again an outright misinformed post, that couldn't even back itself up, needs to be here. You are defending and legitimizing it with this point of view. Much evil has been done in the world because people "tolerated" things and just let injustice slide.
>you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist
Yes, but practically everyone is a propagandist, and has bias. Though he has more sway because money speaks.
>I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction.
Where have you been for the last 250 years? The US was founded on genocide and slavery. Ethnic conflict has been here forever.
Pardon my ignorance, as I am just trying to understand this (not my field of expertise). What is the relationship with violent crime rates and population density? That seems to be an important factor in this that isn’t getting highlighted enough. Are we jamming too many people into a small area?
I am asking because I am from a large city. I moved outside of the metro area years ago for work and found it to be refreshing, even though I first hated it and found myself stereotyping these people as ignorant bumpkins. After I got over my initial prejudice (not something I am proud to have felt), this place is more home than any place I’ve ever lived.
It’s an anecdote, but I have experienced a major benefit to living in a place where humans aren’t stacked on top of each other like factory-farmed chickens. I’ve never been put in a position to have to fight for my life out here. Could population density be a factor for increased crime rates? Could we help people by spreading them out a little bit and giving them space to live their lives? Access to nature, etc. Is this a housing problem? I think that more people could move out of the cities if we broke down the stereotypes and made sure to enforce equal housing rights.
This has kind of been a pet theory of mine but, again, I am no expert in this field and I only bring it up here to see what people with better info think about it.
Don’t do this here. The HN rules specifically discourage it:
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."