The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
Bi_3 wrote:
So you might be correct
Thanks!
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
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.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am Posts: 8898 Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
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.
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.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
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.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
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?
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
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.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
Great, we're on the same page.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
No they just stayed in their homes where no crimes happen.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
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
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum