Hacker News Reader

Comment by long_time_gone | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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

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.

But the statement itself essentially proves the thesis of the report.

Can you explain what the thesis is and how this statement validates that?

> 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.

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?

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).

"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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com