So embarrassing! I will delete my comments.

Right. He said that the city intends to have vulnerable groups suffer the most. That’s what I said.

Yeah that’s not how I read his initial comment, which was saying that the city intends to harm these communities.

Mods are searching your comment history.

Wasn’t clear from his initial comment. His follow up comment seems to be talking about that. But then again I didn’t think “environmental racism” involved intentionality—his comment was that the city has intentionally tried to make poor people suffer these harms.

The schools with the neediest students get the most resources, I know that much. I don’t know much about the others.

Is that what OP was talking about?

You also said the city intends to make vulnerable communities suffer bad things. How so?

> New data from the city health department points to disparities in race and gender

> Women were 1.4 times more likely to report symptoms than men

I don’t remember public health officials whining about “disparities in gender” when it came to deaths from Covid. Or life expectancy for that matter.

What this most likely means is that men are less likely to report symptoms, not that they’re less likely to have symptoms. That’s the disparity. Just like men are less likely to report symptoms of depression while women are vastly more likely to be prescribed SSRIs.

I would ban all those—Pazienza, Duck Sauce, Michelle Go, Majors—because they were all one-off crimes and weren’t mass attacks. I don’t like the idea of mods deciding that crimes are important because of the race of the attacker or the victim. Too much discretion there and it would yield too many inconsistent results that would undermine confidence that the rule is being applied fairly. One rule for all stories reporting on specific crimes unless there are truly extraordinary circumstances that make it an issue for the whole city.

I don’t like a rule that privileges certain sources over other sources. Too many arguments about what’s reputable and what isn’t.

Those are my views anyway. And I still don’t know if it makes sense to cordon off crime posts in the first place.

You think there are no instances in which this will help people?

I’m not sure there should be a rule in the first place.

Edit: I would think the trick is to separate quotidian crime reports that are essentially one-off events from stories that are more significant. So the buckets could be:

>Rule: articles whose main subject matter is the commission of specific crimes should be posted in the crime thread.

>Exceptions:

>* articles about corruption by public officials.

>* “meta-crime” articles about responses to specific crimes. For example, statements by politicians in response to specific crimes. Or analysis/discussion of crime trends.

>* articles about crimes that are of extraordinary significance to the city as a whole. For example, the attempted subway mass-shooter. Or a story about a terrorist attack or an attempted terrorist attack. This exception would require the judicious use of mod discretion.

>Possibly other exceptions.

One concern is the constant tug of war here between habitual crime-posters and habitual “fuck the police” posters. If posts about crime are banned because they give the impression that the city is a hellhole, it would be a shame if the sub continues to get spammed with stories about alleged police misconduct. This isn’t to say that police misconduct doesn’t happen. But crime happens, too. And allowing anti-police posts while banning crime posts seems like putting a thumb on the scale of an ongoing debate about policing and public safety. But that may be unavoidable if we’re banning crime posts.

Just some off the cuff thoughts.

His response will be “but Adams barely won the primary.”

I was able to figure that out with my brilliant deductive powers.

Agree the rule needs to be better articulated but this isn’t it.

> A guideline is, is mainstream, reputable news (e.g. NYT, WSJ, etc) covering it,

Lol if you mean “don’t allow Post stories” just say it.

> and/or is it part of a multi-day news cycle.

So we get posts about the same crime over and over because they keep appearing in the news?

Sounds like it is a short term solution and that your criticism is that it isn’t a long term solution.

I don’t know. Look it up.

Presumably he’s talking about a poll of a random sample of city residents, 75% of whom said crime was a major issue for them.

“Correcting the housing crisis” is a long-term project. Even if there were the will to massively expand new housing in NYC, that wouldn’t be a substitute for the problem of severe mental illness among the homeless.

> the following circumstances could be reasonable indicia of an inability to support basic needs due to mental illness that poses harm to the individual: serious untreated physical injury, unawareness or delusional misapprehension of surroundings, or unawareness or delusional misapprehension of physical condition or health.

Gee, you think?

I don’t think you did understand my words if you think that pointing out that it’s not true that “Reddit is only populated by young white online men” is refuting anything I wrote.

Yes, it’s very likely that this sub’s biggest user group is young white men. That would be consistent with the survey data about Reddit’s overall demographics.

I don’t say “only.”

Reddit’s biggest group of users are young white men.

Sigh.

The point is that “the vast majority” of NYC voters did not think Adams’ message that crime was a serious problem was inaccurate.

If your point is that most young white online male voters in NYC disagreed with Adams’ message, and this sub is mostly populated by young white men, and so the focus on crime here is not what one would expect from a group of young white online men who live in NYC, then you probably have a point.

What’s an example of a “more serious” crime and why is it more serious than others?

There are certainly some people who post here who don’t live in the city and who get their kicks shitting on NYC with tales of the urban apocalypse. But at the same time, “the vast majority of people who actually live in NYC” are not on Reddit. And NYC voters elected Eric Adams Mayor on a tough-on-crime message. So I would disagree that most people don’t think crime is a serious problem in NYC. Just because you think they’re stupid doesn’t mean they don’t exist.