This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wrote a substack post on how the recent rise in homicide in the US was higher in ‘Democrat-run cities’.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/107605777
I reran the data except instead of using the variable "to this point in the year" that was all different dates and a series of arbitrarily selected cities, I used the year-end data for all cities in the top 75 US Cities by population plus Buffalo plus whatever else was in the list you had. Then I got rid of any cities that had fewer than 10 murders in either year because any movement there can be chalked up to random variation and not trends (though the numbers were so low I can add it back in if you want; it won't make much of a difference). I also cut Riverside because Rusty Bailey is an independent and I couldn't tell whether he leaned liberal or conservative (for the few other independents it was pretty obvious that they all leaned liberal, but I can take them out if you'd like; it won't make a difference). Then I used your methodology and I came up with... a 23.58% increase in Democratic cities and a 34.33% increase in Republican cities.
Percent increase seems unreasonable.
If country X has GDP of 1m and Country Y has GDP of 1t a 3% increase in country X is likely easier than Country Y.
Run into the same problem here.
Smaller absolute numbers are still more likely to be outliers. The very first iteration of this argument I saw was trying to make the opposite point (that R cities had a bigger increase than D cities), and it did so by cherry-picking out some random tier 3.5 cities with an R mayor that went from 4 murders to 8, and weighed that "100% increase" against the "50% increase" from major cities depicting hundreds of excess murders. Hundreds of discrete murders is obviously going to offer more statistical reliability than something like "This year had an unusually lethal driveby shooting". Similarly, it would be asinine to look at stats from the early 2000's and count 2001 as having an extra 3000 murders in NYC.
You really can't, because the largest city with a Republican mayor is Jacksonville, Florida and has less than a million people. For really large cities there's no basis for comparison.
The problem is that large cities may be different than smaller ones in ways that do not scale linearly with population.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's fair. If we really wanted to answer the question, given the disparity in mayorships for big cities, we might want to do something like find the 50 largest Republican-run cities, and then compare that to the 50 Democrat-run cities with the closest demographics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link