Profitable store closed due to crime

[ozso]

So the left decides to decrease law enforcement. And decriminalize drugs and especially drug use. Then drug use increases exponentially.

Which leads to the increasing number of out of work homeless junkies stealing to get drug money.

Then those on the left produce studies saying that's not happening. And the left goes by those studies, rather than what's actually happening around them, because the studies are "scientific" and those on the left have been convinced that they're scientists.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So the left decides to decrease law enforcement.

The left made a lot of noise about decreasing law enforcement, but the reality in most places didn't live up to their visions. If you want to demonstrate that cuts in law enforcement led to increases in crime, one of the things that you'll have to establish is that cuts to law enforcement actually happened in the first place.

And decriminalize drugs and especially drug use. Then drug use increases exponentially.

AFAIK, decriminalizing drug use isn't about reducing drug use; it's about reducing the total amount of harm created by using and trafficking drugs.

Which leads to the increasing number of out of work homeless junkies stealing to get drug money.

Then those on the left produce studies saying that's not happening. And the left goes by those studies, rather than what's actually happening around them, because the studies are "scientific" and those on the left have been convinced that they're scientists.

If you're seriously arguing that anecdotes are better than data, then I don't think there's anything anybody here could say to convince you to understand things better and there's really no point in engaging with you. In that case, you're just choosing to be wrong.

 

[FireDragon76]

Everyone on the left is a scientist these days.

Is everything about partisan tribalism?

 

[ozso]

Is everything about partisan tribalism?

You're asking me that after writing: "There is income inequality, but the policies of the Right actually don't help reduce it. And to make matters worse, most of the wealthy donors to the Right... the Right distracts the political conversation onto... "

 

[ozso]

The left made a lot of noise about decreasing law enforcement, but the reality in most places didn't live up to their visions. If you want to demonstrate that cuts in law enforcement led to increases in crime, one of the things that you'll have to establish is that cuts to law enforcement actually happened in the first place.

You'll just reject it.

AFAIK, decriminalizing drug use isn't about reducing drug use; it's about reducing the total amount of harm created by using and trafficking drugs.

What it's resulted in is a big increase in the number of homeless junkies stealing for drug money.

If you're seriously arguing that anecdotes are better than data, then I don't think there's anything anybody here could say to convince you to understand things better and there's really no point in engaging with you. In that case, you're just choosing to be wrong.

The mindset now is if the data says the sky is orange, then it must be orange despite the anecdotal evidence that one can see the sky is blue. It's taking living in a bubble to the extreme.

 

[FireDragon76]

You're asking me that after writing: "There is income inequality, but the policies of the Right actually don't help reduce it. And to make matters worse, most of the wealthy donors to the Right... the Right distracts the political conversation onto... "

Can you explain how the policies of the Right address income inequality in substantive ways?

 

[ozso]

Can you explain how the policies of the Right address income inequality in substantive ways?

What's income equality, unskilled labor being paid the same as skilled labor?

 

[iluvatar5150]

You'll just reject it.

That's a lazy cop out, IME, usually employed by people who don't have the media literacy necessary to find and evaluate sources for themselves.

If there's good data, I'll look at it, as will most of the people I know on "my side" of the aisle.

What it's resulted in is a big increase in the number of homeless junkies stealing for drug money.

How do you know that?

And what's been decriminalized other than weed? I don't think there are many people stealing for weed.

The mindset now is if the data says the sky is orange, then it must be orange despite the anecdotal evidence that one can see the sky is blue. It's taking living in a bubble to the extreme.

Using your anecdotal experience to argue against larger trends is the definition of living in a bubble.

 

[ozso]

That's a lazy cop out, IME, usually employed by people who don't have the media literacy necessary to find and evaluate sources for themselves.

How condescending and manipulative.

If there's good data, I'll look at it, as will most of the people I know on "my side" of the aisle.

I've never seen data contrary to the position held being accepted.

How do you know that?

And what's been decriminalized other than weed? I don't think there are many people stealing for weed.

I know it the same as most people know what's going on.

Using your anecdotal experience to argue against larger trends is the definition of living in a bubble.

Real life observation both personally and via footage along with personal experience vs some organization's bars and squiggles. But only if the bars and squiggles fit the narrative.

"Let's go for a walk"

"No, it's raining"

"There's not a cloud in the sky"

"That's anecdotal, the data from the weather forecast says that it's raining"

 

[Tuur]

What's income equality, unskilled labor being paid the same as skilled labor?

Given that a mantra of the left is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," it's also ironic. History has shown us that, in Marxist countries, there are those who seem to need more than others, and, oddly enough, they're usually high ranking officials.

 

[iluvatar5150]

How condescending and manipulative.

It's condescending. I don't see how it's manipulative.

I've never seen data contrary to the position held being accepted.

Have you tried?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Despite the headlines, crime appears to have undergone a historic decline in the US during 2023. Violent crime and property crime both fell substantially, basically reversing the post-pandemic uptick in 2021/2022:

Crime in 2023: Murder Plummeted, Violent and Property Crime Likely Fell Nationally

These trends stand in sharp contrast with polling showing 3 in 4 Americans think crime rose this year.

jasher.substack.com

https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/quarterly

What's interesting is that the PERCEPTION of the level of crime has gone the opposite direction. And that's a long term trend.

Despite crime rates having dropped overall by ~40% since 2000, about three quarters of Americans report they think there is more crime across the US this year than last, and about 55% think there's more crime in their general area. That's climbed from about 40% and 26%, respectively, reporting the same feeling in 2001.

What's most interesting to me is that the feeling of 'there's more crime now in the US than in the past' is strongest among inhabitants of rural areas/small towns and large cities areas - but these are also the areas where crime levels have declined the most in recent years.

It's also one of those cases where media consumption leads to faulty perception. People who report watching significant amounts of cabal news are more likely than the rest of the population to believe crime rates are increasing and that crime is a serious problem. The idea of 'If it bleeds, it leads' results in a problem - the boring reality is not being presented, because it just doesn't generate enough attention.

"Likely" fell. It did not really fall, or businesses wouldn't be pulling out.

 

[ozso]

It's condescending. I don't see how it's manipulative.

You're belittling me and trying to get me to prove you wrong by scouring the media. And from what I've seen over the years is that "media literacy" means presenting preferred media sources.

Have you tried?

Yes. But my seeing data contrary to the position held being rejected across the board is a better indicator of what to expect.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You're belittling me and trying to get me to prove you wrong by scouring the media.

No, I'm trying to get you (and anybody else) to actually support your assertions.

As an example, I've read other posters on this board blame Baltimore's crime spikes during covid on our city's defunding of the police. I can only assume that they got that impression from reading news media about protests and assuming that slogans were actually converted into policy.

The reality is that our police budget dipped a tiny bit in FY21 (0.68%) and then rebounded and kept climbing.

https://bbmr.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/6.%20FY22%20Budget%20Hearing%20Slides%20-%20Police.pdf

Yes. But my seeing data contrary to the position held being rejected across the board is a better indicator of what to expect.

How good was your data? Did it stand up to scrutiny or was it cherry-picked to present an inaccurate impression?

 

[ozso]

No, I'm trying to get you (and anybody else) to actually support your assertions.

As an example, I've read other posters on this board blame Baltimore's crime spikes during covid on our city's defunding of the police. I can only assume that they got that impression from reading news media about protests and assuming that slogans were actually converted into policy.

The reality is that our police budget dipped a tiny bit in FY21 (0.68%) and then rebounded and kept climbing.

https://bbmr.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/6.%20FY22%20Budget%20Hearing%20Slides%20-%20Police.pdf

It's not just literally defunding the police. A lot of it has been toning down law enforcement. Which cuts down the number of arrests being made. Which makes it look like there's less crime taking place.

How good was your data? Did it stand up to scrutiny or was it cherry-picked to present an inaccurate impression?

Oh stop. The "data" is googling websites, not an elaborate scientific process. And I doubt many even really understand what they're looking at when they post it. Many claim to be scientists but remain totally anonymous. I've been on discussion forms since the 90s and I can think of only two leftists who were actual scientists. And only one of those wasn't anonymous and could easily be verified as really being a retired physicist. And that one never got into political debates.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Oh stop. The "data" is googling websites, not an elaborate scientific process. And I doubt many even really understand what they're looking at when they post it. Many claim to be scientists but remain totally anonymous.

There are a number of posters here who can’t tell the difference between an op-ed in The Federalist and a peer reviewed research paper. I have no idea what you consider quality data. For the purposes of an informal board such as this, one need not be producing their own original research, but having a decent quality filter is helpful.

I've been on discussion forms since the 90s and I can think of only two leftists who were actual scientists. And only one of those wasn't anonymous and could easily be verified as really being a retired physicist. And that one never got into political debates.

There are more than two just around here. I know more than two in my personal life. I don’t know how many would consider themselves “leftists” (I doubt many), but I’m confident none would consider themselves far-right conservatives.

 

[ozso]

There are a number of posters here who can’t tell the difference between an op-ed in The Federalist and a peer reviewed research paper. I have no idea what you consider quality data. For the purposes of an informal board such as this, one need not be producing their own original research, but having a decent quality filter is helpful.

Peer review can consist of flat-earthers or ufologists backing each other up. I always find it amusing when I see it being declared that "95% of climate scientists agree with each other!" I'm not talking about someone producing their own research. I'm talking about googling being touted as a scientific or an intellectual process.

There are more than two just around here. I know more than two in my personal life. I don’t know how many would consider themselves “leftists” (I doubt many), but I’m confident none would consider themselves far-right conservatives.

You know them as in you for certain know their actual names, can verify their identity, have met them in person? And there are many who deny being or don't consider themselves leftists, even though they clearly express leftist views and take a leftist stance all the time. And I see the notion that being on the left is all about being scientific being promoted all the time to stroke egos and proliferate the dunning-kruger effect. Which is why so many are so condescending.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You know them as in you for certain know their actual names, can verify their identity, have met them in person?

No, I haven't gone and verified their identities, but given the way they've written about the relevant subjects, I haven't found reason to suspect them. (which is not something I can say about everybody I've seen try to tout their credentials)

And there are many who deny being or don't consider themselves leftists, even though they clearly express leftist views and take a leftist stance all the time. And I see the notion that being on the left is all about being scientific being promoted all the time to stroke egos and proliferate the dunning-kruger effect. Which is why so many are so condescending.

The scientists I've known personally have been primarily concerned with where the research and the data takes them - what works within the context of their own jobs. If that lands them on a position that's associated with "the left," then so be it. Outside of that, I don't recall any of them being overly partisan.

 

[ozso]

No, I haven't gone and verified their identities, but given the way they've written about the relevant subjects, I haven't found reason to suspect them. (which is not something I can say about everybody I've seen try to tout their credentials)

That's what I figured.

The scientists I've known personally have been primarily concerned with where the research and the data takes them - what works within the context of their own jobs. If that lands them on a position that's associated with "the left," then so be it. Outside of that, I don't recall any of them being overly partisan.

You just said that you don't actually know them personally.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You just said that you don't actually know them personally.

To clarify, I'm describing two different groups of people:

There are folks on here alleging to be scientists. I have not verified their identities, but I've found no reason to doubt them, just as I've not found reason to doubt many other folks touting themselves as lawyers, engineers, health care professionals, etc.

There are also scientists whom I know personally. I live in Baltimore, so our church and other social circles include a lot of people doing research at Hopkins.

I can't recall any of them from either group whom I'd describe as leftist, though I'll concede my recollection about the folks on CF is rather fuzzy. I wouldn't call any of the folks I've known personally to be leftist, though many of them lean liberal on at least some issues.