long_time_gone

> I hate this dystopia you people envision of living packed like sardines in a can.

This is a strawman. I live in a city and am not packed like a sardine in a can. We even have single-family homes in my city (here's one in a decent school boundary for $340k [1]). Lots of people also live in condos in 3-story walk-ups where they each have a private deck and share a large backyard. This is in Chicago, one of the largest and densest cities in the US. Your view of city living as exclusively high rises and tiny living quarters does not represent reality for the vast majority of city-dwellers.

> A lot more people think like me. We didn't work so we could move back into cities and live like broke 25 year olds. The life you're envisioning honestly sounds like it sucks. If not I'm open to hear why, but you'll need to convince most people that it's better, not just that it's greener.

According to PEW the breakdown is 14% Rural, 31% Urban, and 55% Suburban [2]. Rural preferences are in the minority, not majority.

[1] https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/5019-W-Wilson-Ave-60630/ho...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demogra...

Interesting how you automatically assigned a gender. My wife has worked from home for 4 years and can't wait to get back into an office. I like to think that some people just have different preferences.

I appreciate the followup.

> Al and Tipper Gore were roundly mocked for the record rating system they championed.

Which has a direct mirror in the mocking of Republicans who are currently trying to ban books and ideas (CRT) they don't like. A lot of your idea rests on the concept of "culturally influential people" pushing these actions. Again, I don't see the evidence of that, seems like a boogeyman.

> R rated movies were far more successful at the box office, with lots of questionable content by today’s standards.

Odd to compare 90s box office to today's box office given the impacts of COVID and streaming. We didn't have Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Paramount, HBO Max, Disney Plus, and more. You would need to add all the R-rated movies from those platforms to make a comparison. Either way, 4 of the 5 highest grossing R-rated movies (inflation adjusted) came out after 2000 [1].

> Today, the academic and cultural power brokers are the biggest champions of shutting down “objectionable” speech.

We definitely hear more complaining about it, today. I haven't seen evidence that it actually occurs more frequently. If anything, I see the opposite influence in the race to ban scary books and transgender people. Those ideas aren't coming from "cultural" leaders or "academics".

That said, it is far easier to be gay or transgendered today than the 90s. We also just had a President who described people as ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ He also 'told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …” [2] I don't think that would have been a good electoral strategy in the 90s, probably would have gotten him "cancelled."

[1] https://www.the-numbers.com/market/mpaa-rating/R-(US)

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-co...

If you can't explicitly say it, can you at least describe in what ways it is "less free than, say, the 1990s?"

If not, the comment loses value.

> 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.

> They didn't pay him to write books in the future. I really don't understand this bizarre "fandom" idea that a writer owes his readers something beyond what they have paid for.

Do this day, 12 years after this was written, he blogs about how the books are his top priority. He is certainly giving his readers the idea that he owes them a finish by constantly communicating that he will finish.

> Confirmation bias tends to manifest as a desire for more in-depth analysis for statements that violate one's expectations, but the rational case here is that the prevailing narrative needs far more in-depth analysis to deserve any kind of support.

I have been trying to say this exact thing, but couldn't put it as clearly.

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).

> Why would the election, that happened in Nov and was only effective the following year, matter for that year's data?

As I mentioned, likely because it was a data point that crossed city, county, and state lines. I can't think of another data point that provides that type of insight across such a broad swath of the population at a specific point in time. If you have some, please provide, it would make for a richer data set.

> The best thing would likely be to look at a matrix of policies for each state to identify potential impact from a specific policy over time and in combination with the other factors.

Plenty of that analysis is available, unfortunately the results don't penetrate the echo chamber. Here are a few [1] [2] [3].

[1] https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254669.pdf

[2] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your...

[3] https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-...

> 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.

> like using Trump instead of governor or a matrix of policies.

And if they used Governor, you might complain that they didn't use Statehouse. And if they used that, you might come up with another reason.

My guess is that they used Trump AND Biden because they were the only politicians on the ballot in each of the states they studied. Many states didn't even have a Governor race in 2020 (the year they studied for election and murder).

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

> Not to mention, the article is not presented in a way that would do anything other than validate one side's already held belief rather than dig into the topic.

This is how you see it. Your first response being "How is this study wrong?" rather than "How might my assumptions be wrong?" kind of proves the point.

> You need a longitudinal study is my whole point.

I agree. I think this report is just meant to provide a counter to the prevailing (accepted?) narrative. Maybe it's meant to inspire/fund the type of study you suggest?

> I'm not saying that this validates Republicans positions, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence against it.

But it does. It shows that Democratic run states (California, New York, Illinois, Washington, etc.) have lower murder rates than Republican run states (Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, etc.) REGARDLESS of what the murder rate is in cities (of which Democratic-run states states tend to have more of).

None of the most urbanized states (NJ, CA, MA, NV, etc.) are in the top-10 murder for states [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...

> But are those upset people actually questioning their position, or defending it?

If they aren't questioning their assumptions, then they are engaging on the wrin

> Even the basic premise of the article has been essentially strawmaned - comparing states to cities

It doesn't really compare cities to states. It mentions how cities are in states, which we know. It is about how Republicans use crime in cities as a hammer to hit Democratic policies and this data shows that narrative might not reflect reality.

> look at the socioeconomic factors at play in the various locations, etc.

These are also a function of government in some way, so it's hard to add this to the analysis without biasing the data.

> 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.

> Slippery how even their takeaway section switches from cities to states, and who the states voted for.

Not really. Most of us understand the difference between states and cities. They were trying to head off the argument that you ended up making anyways.

> In the top 20 highest murder per capita cities in the US, 18 are democratic mayor, 1 is a former democrat turned independent (Las Vegas), and 1 is republican (Tulsa).

Jacksonville has a Republican mayor and a higher murder rate than Tulsa (according to this report), so it appears someone's data is off.

> Without showing the real answers, this article is more about validating people who hold an existing position rather than trying to spread knowledge to, or convince, people holding a neutral or contrary position.

I think this is exactly the opposite of the takeaway. Republicans have been promoting the idea that Democrats are weak on crime and their city's are overrun with murders. They have been running on this message since at least Reagan in the 80s. This challenges that existing position with actual data about states.

It might not be as deep as you like, but it certainly challenges the existing narrative (that's why you see so many people upset in the comments).

> First of all, they vast majority of the article is n=1 where they sampled one year.

Wouldn't "n" be number of murders?

> Furthermore, the entire analysis is stupid because 2020 was the pandemic year.

It was a pandemic year in every one of these states.

> Go to [1] and sort by median household income. What you will find is basically the same ranking as in this article. What do you believe - poverty or political preference leads to increases of crime?

What if the two of them are linked? If a handful of states follow the same political ideology, and also share an outsized poverty and murder rate it is worth analyzing if those same policies have an impact.

> If anything, because urban areas have a higher population density, one would expect them to have a higher rate of murder per capita, but shockingly, they don't.

I think this is the part that is causing the malfunction. None of the traditional arguments work against this simple data set.

> obscures the fact that red states are poorer, less educated, and score lower on most quality of life measures than blue states.

Does it obscure that fact? Maybe those facts are the underlying reason for some of the other ills.

> Given that murders occur where there are more people (cities), I don't find these findings that surprising.

This makes little sense as the places with more density are more likely to vote Democratic. Yet, this data shows us that (some) more rural states have higher murder rates.

> people do not choose to murder more because the majority votes red.

I'm glad nobody claimed this, because it wouldn't make any sense. Back in reality, do you have any ideas on the variables or just want to throw cold water on the entire discussion because it challenges your assumptions?

Sounds like you are trying to justify the results to fit your existing narrative. You immediately assume there is a fault in the data instead of analyzing your own baseline assumptions. The idea that Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. have higher murder rates because they are "very liberal" doesn't pass the smell test.

Your comment also seems to assume that the states which vote blue somehow don't have locally elected DA's? That doesn't explain why Missouri (with much less urbanization) has a higher murder than Illinois or Michigan (with "out--of-control" cities like Chicago and Detroit.

Now, to test the ideology, do Miami/Jacksonville/Ft. Worth. All Republican cities in Republican states, all with surging crime. They didn’t take the actions you mentioned, but have the same result. Maybe it’s an opportunity to re-visit baseline assumptions.

> I think what you mean by "travel outside the USA" might be "travel in Europe". I'd bet that you'd get more recognition of the Lakers in, say, China than any of those Premier League teams.

You are still forgetting a few continents. I know from experience that Central and South America complexity stop for Champions League finals.

I it’s quite possible that Liverpool is known more for The Beatles than football.

>The part that is missing is the personal responsibility.

Where is that missing? It is there today. The fact is that society bears the financial burden of someone spending a life in prison (and also the emotional/financial/physical burden of the person's actual crimes). You seem to be dismissing that to make an ideological stance.

So, the current system? The same strategy that's gotten us the high incarceration and crimes rates we have today doesn't seem like a solution to anything. Seems like a straightforward way to changing nothing.

> At some point, compassion has failed and incarceration is the only solution.

The US has a higher incarceration rate than other developed countries, while also maintaining higher crime/violence rates. It doesn't seem to be a good solution to the crime problem. Does Andre get out of prison? What then?

It may be more accurate to say, "At some point incarceration has failed and compassion is the only solution."

> Come back when you think of an excuse to trust their data without verification.

Your entire premise is based on a straw man. Nobody is blindly accepting China’s data as gospel, they are saying that it’s the only data we have.

You have presented nothing but innuendo.