Red Mosquito

I think you do a decent job making his point.

Bi_3 wrote:So you might be correct

Thanks!

But just as an addendum, again, if you read carefully, you'll note that phrases like "driving factor" are your invention, where in my claims you'll find language like "positive correlation," "uptick," or "incentivize." I'm not a criminologists and I have little interest in isolating a single cause for an entirely overdetermined situation like the higher crime rates in New York City this year--that's the labor of dipshits and charlatans of the Freakonomics variety. What I am interested in is contesting stupid, reductive takes, like the implication that stay-at-home means off-the-streets means less crime, in other words that crime is going up "despite the lockdown" as if the lockdown could only exert pressure in one direction. And I am especially interested in poking holes in those kinds of arguments when they're being used to carry water for shit like increasing cop budgets.

Mickey wrote:And I am especially interested in poking holes in those kinds of arguments when they're being used to carry water for shit like increasing cop budgets.

And allowing strangleholds, Mickey. For the last time. We need more f'n strangleholds.

Mickey wrote:But just as an addendum, again, if you read carefully, you'll note that phrases like "driving factor" are your invention, where in my claims you'll find language like "positive correlation," "uptick," or "incentivize." I'm not a criminologists and I have little interest in isolating a single cause for an entirely overdetermined situation like the higher crime rates in New York City this year--that's the labor of dipshits and charlatans of the Freakonomics variety. What I am interested in is contesting stupid, reductive takes, like the implication that stay-at-home means off-the-streets means less crime, in other words that crime is going up "despite the lockdown" as if the lockdown could only exert pressure in one direction. And I am especially interested in poking holes in those kinds of arguments when they're being used to carry water for shit like increasing cop budgets.

You are the only person asserting any potential positively correlated factor for the uptick here, friend.

Lemon goes full "not real Socialism" on Crews:

I've seen this clip put up in this light in a few places now and I don't see it.

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:But just as an addendum, again, if you read carefully, you'll note that phrases like "driving factor" are your invention, where in my claims you'll find language like "positive correlation," "uptick," or "incentivize." I'm not a criminologists and I have little interest in isolating a single cause for an entirely overdetermined situation like the higher crime rates in New York City this year--that's the labor of dipshits and charlatans of the Freakonomics variety. What I am interested in is contesting stupid, reductive takes, like the implication that stay-at-home means off-the-streets means less crime, in other words that crime is going up "despite the lockdown" as if the lockdown could only exert pressure in one direction. And I am especially interested in poking holes in those kinds of arguments when they're being used to carry water for shit like increasing cop budgets.

You are the only person asserting any potential positively correlated factor for the uptick here, friend.

I will hand it to you, this is a relatively brilliant slight-of-hand and I'm sure it has worked well for you in the past. But it's a farce: your first post made the positive assertion that the lockdown should have led to diminished crime--that's the implication of "all this awesomeness despite the lockdown." But then you followed up by saying:

Bi_3 wrote:I'm not the one implying those [economic developments linked to the lockdown] were the driving factors and it's not my burden to prove them wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself correct when stating such things, so have at it.

The first part here is technically correct--you're not implying they were the driving factors, because you're already saying the opposite, you've assumed (without evidence) that they are irrelevant, that the lockdown would only have diminished crime. That's a much stronger positive claim than saying that the lockdown might correlate (or, in my follow-up post, asking why it would not) with an uptick in crime (correlation being, of course, not causation, and certainly not a "driving factor"). Again, you're welcome to re-read my posts (they're quite good), in which you'll note that not once did I claim a direct link between lockdown economics and the overall crime rates. To maintain open the possibility of a causal relationship between the two, and to assert it to the exclusion of all other factors, are different claims, and an intelligent person is generally able to see them as such.

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:But just as an addendum, again, if you read carefully, you'll note that phrases like "driving factor" are your invention, where in my claims you'll find language like "positive correlation," "uptick," or "incentivize." I'm not a criminologists and I have little interest in isolating a single cause for an entirely overdetermined situation like the higher crime rates in New York City this year--that's the labor of dipshits and charlatans of the Freakonomics variety. What I am interested in is contesting stupid, reductive takes, like the implication that stay-at-home means off-the-streets means less crime, in other words that crime is going up "despite the lockdown" as if the lockdown could only exert pressure in one direction. And I am especially interested in poking holes in those kinds of arguments when they're being used to carry water for shit like increasing cop budgets.

You are the only person asserting any potential positively correlated factor for the uptick here, friend.

I will hand it to you, this is a relatively brilliant slight-of-hand and I'm sure it has worked well for you in the past. But it's a farce: your first post made the positive assertion that the lockdown should have led to diminished crime--that's the implication of "all this awesomeness despite the lockdown." But then you followed up by saying:

Bi_3 wrote:I'm not the one implying those [economic developments linked to the lockdown] were the driving factors and it's not my burden to prove them wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself correct when stating such things, so have at it.

The first part here is technically correct--you're not implying they were the driving factors, because you're already saying the opposite, you've assumed (without evidence) that they are irrelevant, that the lockdown would only have diminished crime. That's a much stronger positive claim than saying that the lockdown might correlate (or, in my follow-up post, asking why it would not) with an uptick in crime (correlation being, of course, not causation, and certainly not a "driving factor"). Again, you're welcome to re-read my posts (they're quite good), in which you'll note that not once did I claim a direct link between lockdown economics and the overall crime rates. To maintain open the possibility of a causal relationship between the two, and to assert it to the exclusion of all other factors, are different claims, and an intelligent person is generally able to see them as such.

Burt was pointing out Mayor Bill complaining about something it was his responsibility to address, the failure of effective policing in NYC. I was pointing out it goes far beyond that singular incident and that despite the fact (and it's a fact) that the police had millions of fewer people to deal with on a daily basis, crime was going up, meaning the crime rate numbers themselves were underestimating the level of fail by the city. I asserted nothing about the cause of that increase, assumed nothing about the cause of that increase, implied nothing about the cause of that increase. The context of the "despite the lockdown" post was the context of the post it was replying to.

So, no, i'm not saying that. That's what you are pretending I am saying so you can debate that other position. Perhaps there is a name for such a rhetorical trick?

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:But just as an addendum, again, if you read carefully, you'll note that phrases like "driving factor" are your invention, where in my claims you'll find language like "positive correlation," "uptick," or "incentivize." I'm not a criminologists and I have little interest in isolating a single cause for an entirely overdetermined situation like the higher crime rates in New York City this year--that's the labor of dipshits and charlatans of the Freakonomics variety. What I am interested in is contesting stupid, reductive takes, like the implication that stay-at-home means off-the-streets means less crime, in other words that crime is going up "despite the lockdown" as if the lockdown could only exert pressure in one direction. And I am especially interested in poking holes in those kinds of arguments when they're being used to carry water for shit like increasing cop budgets.

You are the only person asserting any potential positively correlated factor for the uptick here, friend.

I will hand it to you, this is a relatively brilliant slight-of-hand and I'm sure it has worked well for you in the past. But it's a farce: your first post made the positive assertion that the lockdown should have led to diminished crime--that's the implication of "all this awesomeness despite the lockdown." But then you followed up by saying:

Bi_3 wrote:I'm not the one implying those [economic developments linked to the lockdown] were the driving factors and it's not my burden to prove them wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself correct when stating such things, so have at it.

The first part here is technically correct--you're not implying they were the driving factors, because you're already saying the opposite, you've assumed (without evidence) that they are irrelevant, that the lockdown would only have diminished crime. That's a much stronger positive claim than saying that the lockdown might correlate (or, in my follow-up post, asking why it would not) with an uptick in crime (correlation being, of course, not causation, and certainly not a "driving factor"). Again, you're welcome to re-read my posts (they're quite good), in which you'll note that not once did I claim a direct link between lockdown economics and the overall crime rates. To maintain open the possibility of a causal relationship between the two, and to assert it to the exclusion of all other factors, are different claims, and an intelligent person is generally able to see them as such.

Burt was pointing out Mayor Bill complaining about something it was his responsibility to address, the failure of effective policing in NYC. I was pointing out it goes far beyond that singular incident and that despite the fact (and it's a fact) that the police had millions of fewer people to deal with on a daily basis, crime was going up, meaning the crime rate numbers themselves were underestimating the level of fail by the city. I asserted nothing about the cause of that increase, assumed nothing about the cause of that increase, implied nothing about the cause of that increase. The context of the "despite the lockdown" post was the context of the post it was replying to.

So, no, i'm not saying that. That's what you are pretending I am saying so you can debate that other position. Perhaps there is a name for such a rhetorical trick?

I don't know how to break it to you homie but you're literally doing it again right here, in this very post.

If you say so, bud.

Great, we're on the same page.

Mickey wrote:Great, we're on the same page.

absolutely are bro.

Wait the lockdown disappeared people?

No they just stayed in their homes where no crimes happen.

Mickey wrote:No they just stayed in their homes where no crimes happen.

that's right! nobody ever does anything bad in their own home, apartment building, housing complex, neighborhood, or city provided they stay indoors!

I only rape in public

elliseamos wrote:Wait the lockdown disappeared people?

Commuters dude, commuters

Bi_3 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Wait the lockdown disappeared people?

Commuters dude, commuters

So they were never part of the communities that the NYPD had to deal with on a nightly, non-working day of the week? Hmm.

elliseamos wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Wait the lockdown disappeared people?

Commuters dude, commuters

So they were never part of the communities that the NYPD had to deal with on a nightly, non-working day of the week? Hmm.

I don’t understand your question, but dude there are like a million to 1.5M workers that come in from outside the NYPDs AOR (320k from NJ alone). Plus the 700k tourists the city averaged daily. Those people were largely absent from the city starting in late March. They were not disappeared