Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Everyone on the left is a scientist these days.
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... "Is everything about partisan tribalism?
You'll just reject it.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.
What it's resulted in is a big increase in the number of homeless junkies stealing for drug money.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.
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.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.
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... "
What's income equality, unskilled labor being paid the same as skilled labor?Can you explain how the policies of the Right address income inequality in substantive ways?
You'll just reject it.
What it's resulted in is a big increase in the number of homeless junkies stealing for drug money.
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.
How condescending and manipulative.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.
I've never seen data contrary to the position held being accepted.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 know it the same as most people know what's going on.How do you know that?
And what's been decriminalized other than weed? I don't think there are many people stealing for weed.
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.Using your anecdotal experience to argue against larger trends is the definition of living in a bubble.
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.What's income equality, unskilled labor being paid the same as skilled labor?
How condescending and manipulative.
I've never seen data contrary to the position held being accepted.
"Likely" fell. It did not really fall, or businesses wouldn't be pulling out.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
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.
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.It's condescending. I don't see how it's manipulative.
Yes. But my seeing data contrary to the position held being rejected across the board is a better indicator of what to expect.Have you tried?
You're belittling me and trying to get me to prove you wrong by scouring the media.
How good was your data? Did it stand up to scrutiny or was it cherry-picked to present an inaccurate impression?Yes. But my seeing data contrary to the position held being rejected across the board is a better indicator of what to expect.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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?
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.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.
That's what I figured.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)
You just said that you don't actually know them personally.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.
To clarify, I'm describing two different groups of people:You just said that you don't actually know them personally.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?