Reacting with this kind of attack and breaking the site guidelines this badly is not cool. It destroys the commons and discredits your argument. Supposing your argument to be correct, that is particularly bad, because now you're discrediting the very truth you're advocating for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Not only does that not help, it causes harm. If you're in possession of more of the truth than others, you have a responsibility to handle it better. On this site, that means responding to inaccurate information with better information and explaining why it's better without attacks, swipes, or putdowns. Here's one edit that takes all of that out of your comment:

The rate according to data you provided was 20.3/100k. The murder rate is proportional to population density across the country as a general rule, so the 'US average' is a misleading stat to try to use for comparison with a large city. If you compare Newark to its own past rates they are currently at a rate that was last seen in the 60s (this period of low homicide and crime rates was present _before_ covid). While the general trend in large US cities is downward, Newark started from a higher rate and has dropped significantly faster than comparable cities.

That would have been a fine post, much more effective in persuading readers, and without provoking the tedious off-topic flamewar that we got below. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the intended spirit of the site? We'd appreciate it.

Why reply like with insults like this ("pathetic", etc), and most of all, why did people flag the comment? Assuming your own stats are correct, you refuted his comment really well, and using abusive language only diminishes your response.

If HN is going to actually engage in these political debates (and I question whether it's wise to do so for the community), then people are going to have to stop flagging comments that go against whatever they believe, and just refute them like you just did (using your facts, not your insults).

If you believe (like I do, increasingly) that HN should avoid the political topics, then flag the whole article, not individual comments.

PS: the reason why people use throwaways for unpopular opinions is because they are well aware that there's a large group of people out there who will go after their jobs.

I agree that the tone of replies matter, but flagging comments spreading misinformation seems like a positive thing.

It's not a different belief, it was a flat out lie and spreading of misinformation, their own source doesn't even back them up. Stop pushing a narrative that misinformation should be "equally considered" or is "just another point of view".

"misinformation" is the rallying cry of those who wish to suppress speech, even if that speech is patently false. Enough with the Gestapo tactics.

Instead, allow the incorrect statement to be contrasted with correct information.

I'm sure you you would agree that there are limits. Or what would you say if someone here started to create throwaway accounts spreading persinal lies about you?

Would you still argue that it's enough to just correct those lies? What about if the person isn't just a single person but a group.

Also, I hope you do realise the irony of arguing by calling someone's opinion gestapo tactics.

>Instead, allow the incorrect statement to be contrasted with correct information.

That's exactly what the person replying did.

This is where you and I disagree, and frankly why our country will continue to decline into more polarization and violence.

I believe that you convince people that they're wrong by making a reasoned argument. You seem to believe that you convince people that they're wrong by shutting them up, and censoring them.

And as a free human being, I'll push whichever POV I so choose.

If you make a statement and provide a source that contradicts your statement, yes, you should be questioned on why you even provided that source in the first place, and if you actually read/comprehended it. That isn't "shutting them up", they invalidated their own claims with their own source.

Question?

Absolutely. I encourage respectful questioning and refuting.

Flagging and censoring? (cdot2 had been flagged into invisibility until he was unflagged) "paradox of tolerance"[1]?

Nope

1. People should read _Open Society and Its Enemies_ before making that argument, because how they're applying it is not what Popper argued.

I don't see why the HN community has to honor/uphold/tolerate/defend the opinion of a throwaway account posting inaccurate information its own cited source refutes. These alternative viewpoints need to have some level of credibility to them, we should not defend every rando's opinion blindly.

I don't think an "open society" has ever actually existed or is even possible. All freedoms are measured in degrees based on the society. "Open society" likely leads more to vacuums filled by whoever has the best propaganda. George Soros, one of the bigger proponents of Popper, what with his Open Society Foundation inspired by Popper's works, has noted that deceptive modern advertising and propaganda casts doubts on the viability of Popper's vision of an open society[1]. However, Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist attempting to suppress conservative viewpoints, and is often the target of misinformation conspiracy theory campaigns himself.

How much tolerance must we show? "The sky is purple"? "2+2=5"? Society must acknowledge these viewpoints? The mere act of acknowledging them as "viable alternative viewpoints" lends them credibility, which only festers more misinformation. It feels like as of late there has been increased pressure by certain groups to recategorize repugnant viewpoints as not being repugnant, but simply "a different perspective, worthy of tolerance and legitimacy".

1.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/11/frompo...

> I don't see why the HN community has to honor/uphold/tolerate/defend

Those are all very different words. And you do the same below when you mix up "tolerate" and "legitimize". Are you trying to confuse the debate? To be clear, I'm solely arguing for tolerate and not censor, not any of the other things. And wow, looking at that comment that was flagged, I can't comprehend how you would believe it's so repugnant that it's worthy of censoring and suppression.

> Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist

He's the target of unfortunate conspiracy theories, but I want to get this straight: you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist? Do you also not think the Koch brothers are libertarian propagandists? Of course, they all are!

But yeah, I strongly disagree. I think censoring people who disagree, combined with the power and income inequality that was created by the plutocrats, will together kill our country. I don't want to give away my identity since I'm aware there are lots of people who would try to get me fired for disagreeing with them, but I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction.

>Those are all very different words.

Not really. You are arguing that misinformation needs to have a place on this platform, and have a chance to be heard. Again an outright misinformed post, that couldn't even back itself up, needs to be here. You are defending and legitimizing it with this point of view. Much evil has been done in the world because people "tolerated" things and just let injustice slide.

>you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist

Yes, but practically everyone is a propagandist, and has bias. Though he has more sway because money speaks.

>I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction.

Where have you been for the last 250 years? The US was founded on genocide and slavery. Ethnic conflict has been here forever.

This is what has actually happened to the country's political values (click animate to view the data over the past several decades):

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-...

Here is a more detailed discussion of the data. Tragically, Pew Research describes the situation as dire even back in 2014, which was before polarization really started to accelerate.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-po...

As you can see, both parties are moved toward the extremes, but in recent years the left has moved further to the left than the right toward the right.

These moves to the extremes of the right and left are driven partly by social media, and partly by traditional media (since most traditional media these days originates in social media: original reportage is getting increasingly rare).

That says nothing about the actual policies, only how polarized they are against each other relatively. Since 1992, both parties have moved to the right, just the Republicans have moved moreso. That's how we ended up with Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation's 1994 HEART Act becoming Obamacare and radioactive to the Republicans two decades later.

Go check out the concept of the overton window and see how a window can move to the right while both sides become more distinct within that window.

Why don't you at least look into the study methodology before answering with such certainty? Since Pew Research uses the same questions, there's no shifting of the "Overton Window" (I'm well aware of the concept).

So this poll measures both absolute and relative movement.

I actually agree that there has been some shifting to the right of the Overton Window in fiscal and economic issues only as the Democratic Party has abandoned its traditional working class constituency. But that has no bearing on this poll.

I've read the entire study many times. Perhaps you can point out how explicitly how they adjust for shifts of how definitions like "consistently liberal" shift over time?

Even the fact that "liberal" means left now is a function of how far to the right the democrats have gone, the Third Way Democrats having cemented their hold on the party.

Additionally being "fiscally right wing" is an overall right wing position. Being lukewarm for left wing positions only on the condition that it doesn't come out of public funding is at best a center right wing viewpoint.

> Perhaps you can point out how explicitly how they adjust for shifts of how definitions like "consistently liberal" shift over time?

Once again, the questions are just policy questions. They don't mention anything about "liberal" or "conservative". They ask policy questions, which is exactly what you seem to have wanted initially. If you've read the study methodology, then you should be aware of exactly what the survey respondants are asked.

> Additionally being "fiscally right wing" is an overall right wing position

If you believe that, then the coming years are going to be a big surprise to you. The GOP of Reagan is on its way out. People like Hawley, who are happy to work with Bernie Sanders on certain fiscal policies, are on their way in. You may well still hate them because they are populists, but they have a different outlook on multinational corporations and the ultrawealthy than the old GOP.

> Once again, the questions are just policy questions. They don't mention anything about "liberal" or "conservative". They ask policy questions, which is exactly what you seem to have wanted initially. If you read the study methodology, then you should be aware of exactly what the survey respondants are asked.

Then you should be able to list one policy qustion they asked in 2014 and 1994 that doesn't use the word "liberal" or "conservative"?

> If you believe that, then the coming years are going to be a big surprise to you. The GOP of Reagan is on its way out. People like Hawley, who are happy to work with Bernie Sanders on certain fiscal policies, are on their way in. You may well still hate them because they are populists, but they have a different outlook on multinational corporations and the ultrawealthy than the old GOP.

I'm not sure why you started thinking I hate people for being populists, or that you think Hawley has even a modicum of support from the Republican party as whole (both voters and politicians).

> Then you should be able to list one policy qustion they asked in 2014 and 1994 that doesn't use the word "liberal" or "conservative"?

Read them all here:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/site...

Those are the actual questions they ask. They "grade" them as liberal or conservative as shown in the columns (they mention that in the methodology section).

Also, it's not just 1994 and 2014. They've done it at 3-5 year intervals since 1994 up to 2017. Look at 2017 in particular, since that explains a lot about where we find ourselves today.

Personally, I'm glad there are people like Hawley. GOP has been in the pocket of big business for far too long. And now the Democratic party is thoroughly embedded there, too. There is a strong grassroots contigent with more reasonable fiscal views (read: much less plutocratic) coming up in the local and state GOP (unfortunately, some of them are also conspiracists, which is very bad). They may lose in the end, but there will be a fight for the party between the old wing and the new wing.

Edit: Those have been the questions all along. I've followed this poll for a decade. I'd pull up evidence of that, but I suspect you'd put some new requirement in for being convinced. I mean, you thought that the questions included "liberal" and "conservative" in them initially. And I'm really not interested in continuing a debate with someone who feels the need to ask me to "stay on task" with how he feels the discussion should proceeed (Hawley came up because you said right == fiscally conservative and he's a counterexample). So I'm out.

Those are the questions they asked in 2017. I specifically asked for a question asked in both 1994 and 2014. My whole point is that the shape of the questions would change over time to reflect the shifts in the overton window.

That citation does not reflect the requirements I set out.

And I'm not sure where you're going with this Hawley stuff, but it seems pretty off topic from the line being discussed. I'd appreciate if we stayed on point.

Thank you for the link to the Pew research. Here’s my response to the claims of the research and this response is solely based off of my observations and clearly my observations could have led me astray.

In 1980 anyone claiming Jimmy Carter’s wife was a man would have been labeled a kook by the vast majority of Republicans. Today we have a nontrivial amount of conservatives/libertarians who believe this claim about Michelle Obama. We have non-trivial amounts of Republicans who think Covid is a hoax. We have non-trivial amounts of Republicans who think vaccines are harmful. I’m not talking about Covid vaccines but another measles vaccines and polio vaccines. We have Republicans today call the affordable care act socialism when it was a proposal of the Heritage Foundation in the early 90s. We have Republicans today decry cap and trade when cap and trade was used by Reagan to combat acid rain. Today any Republican who says that the tax on labor should be less than the tax on capital would not be supported by the party and this was Reagan’s position. The list goes on.

The Republican Party has shifted into crazy land. They supported a President that mocked a former prisoner of war in their own party. The party of family values supported a serial sex abuser. They supported a man who wondered if nuclear weapons could stop a hurricane. They supported a man who thought Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

This is a party that resides in cuckoo land. There is no middle grounds with such spineless, inconsistent, hypocritical people. There is no way to reason with such people. The party is detached from reality.

I appreciate the clarification. I do find it interesting that population density is a factor for understanding these rates over time.

Pardon my ignorance, as I am just trying to understand this (not my field of expertise). What is the relationship with violent crime rates and population density? That seems to be an important factor in this that isn’t getting highlighted enough. Are we jamming too many people into a small area?

I am asking because I am from a large city. I moved outside of the metro area years ago for work and found it to be refreshing, even though I first hated it and found myself stereotyping these people as ignorant bumpkins. After I got over my initial prejudice (not something I am proud to have felt), this place is more home than any place I’ve ever lived.

It’s an anecdote, but I have experienced a major benefit to living in a place where humans aren’t stacked on top of each other like factory-farmed chickens. I’ve never been put in a position to have to fight for my life out here. Could population density be a factor for increased crime rates? Could we help people by spreading them out a little bit and giving them space to live their lives? Access to nature, etc. Is this a housing problem? I think that more people could move out of the cities if we broke down the stereotypes and made sure to enforce equal housing rights.

This has kind of been a pet theory of mine but, again, I am no expert in this field and I only bring it up here to see what people with better info think about it.

> can you not even be bothered to read the stat you tried to pick to prove your point

Don’t do this here. The HN rules specifically discourage it:

Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

I did not claim they did not read the article, I explicitly called out the fact that the source they reference in support of a numerical claim actually said something completely different. Please do not try to be a pseudo-mod, we already have people with that task and they seem to be doing a better job of it than you.