• Scrubbles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    519 hours ago

    A big question I ask people is “Why do we feel less safe even though crime is at an all time low?” Not a lot of people have answers, and I think way too many people aren’t aware of that fact. It’s one of the safest times to walk through any downtown core, yet people feel the least safe they ever have.

    • Ms. ArmoredThirteen
      link
      fedilink
      114 hours ago

      My ex spouse got an app that gave alerts every time there was anything going down in our neighborhood. They went from cautious to walk around at night to “omg we live in a crime riddled hellhole with people being murdered everywhere” and stopped going outside. People now have access to so much information, often explicitly designed to make you fearful, and we suck at statistics

    • @NewDark
      link
      438 hours ago

      The answer is the media.

      • Kalkaline
        link
        fedilink
        117 hours ago

        It’s not all of the media, it’s editorialized news, opinion pieces, debate format shows, etc.

          • Kalkaline
            link
            fedilink
            -46 hours ago

            But it’s not “the media” it’s the heavily editorialized media. There are plenty of credible sources who remain neutral who don’t deserve to be lumped in with the rest.

            • @refalo@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              95 hours ago

              The problem is not everyone agrees on what exactly “editorialized” and “credible” means. You’re making the same arguments they would make against you.

    • @BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      308 hours ago

      The thing is, I don’t feel less safe walking down the street. I can’t really relate to people who do. That drives the divide further.

      • Scrubbles
        link
        fedilink
        English
        96 hours ago

        That’s really the problem. When I friends from small towns come and visit I can see they’re on edge the entire time while I’m just doing what I do every day. Yes there’s a person sleeping there. Yes someone is screaming a block down. There’s traffic noise, and the subway isn’t the cleanest - but it’s normal, that’s what I’m used to. It takes a bit of thicker skin, but once you realize nothing is really unsafe about it it gets easier. Problem is voters from tiny 20,000 population places vote with that fear already, and think that cities are unsafe. We can’t bring everyone to the city and hold their hand.

      • bountygiver [any]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        66 hours ago

        it’s all vibes, you are way more likely to get hurt from a car crash than crime yet people have no problem driving.

      • @Benjaben@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        127 hours ago

        That’s definitely part of the problem. I had an incident recently where an older family member had a minor panic. Because I left my (mfg in 2006!!) vehicle running in the driveway while I ran inside. During the day. In a very safe suburban neighborhood. Just a flat out absurd concern and she leapt right to it, instantly. She’s always been concerned, she’s a grandma, but she wasn’t pointlessly terrified like this years ago.

        I think many of us don’t realize how badly this irrational fear has taken hold, or maybe I should say how effectively this irrational fear has been deployed. Otherwise ~reasonable people are walking around thinking the worst is going to happen everywhere at all times, based on absolutely nothing - worse than nothing, it’s based on weaponized deception.

  • @eldavi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    -8
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    veritassium did this fascinating af video mirroring a study on people’s political biases and how it influences reasoning: it seems like the more educated or intelligent you are, the more your biases interfere with your ability to analyze positions that are contrary to your own views and that interference is proportional to your level of education/intelligence and the people who don’t have either are able to reason mostly the same whether or not their biases where challenged.

    • @tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      33 hours ago

      But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks.

      I dunno if equating numeracy with intelligence is a fair read, but an interesting study nonetheless.

      • @eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        that’s how he defines numeracy in the video but he used the word “smarter” on youtube. i didn’t think it fit either so i just went with “intelligence” because it means acquiring and using knowledge in a similar way to numeracy; but was still in keeping with the source & the youtube video.

    • @IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      43 hours ago

      Alternate title: A single “study” presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone’s perspective on a subject, especially if that “study” presents “facts” that are contradictory to the listener’s previous knowledge.

      Humans aren’t rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn’t have much of an opinion to begin with.

        • @IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          42 hours ago

          Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on “gun bans”, even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don’t change, only the public perception of them.

          It’s like if they showed people a new study for “Earth gravity” vs “Moon gravity” and act surprised when people don’t immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn’t be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.

          Yes, they found bias. Cool.

    • @knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      87 hours ago

      I watched veritassium for a short while, but i can’t take them serious with all the click bait. Can you provide a link to the proper study instead?

    • @Bertuccio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      126 hours ago

      You’re definitely on the right track.

      The only actual job of the police is to file crime reports.

      They do not prevent crime. Protect innocents. Make people show up for court etc. They have no obligation to stop a crime in progress or protect someone being hurt, even if they’re standing right there and could stop it.

      Anything in the justice system that you value is either done by someone else, or actually isn’t done at all.

      • @DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -25 hours ago

        Let’s abolish the police, therefore no one can report crime to the police, but then we see people reporting crimes elsewhere and as it turns out, crimes still happen, even when not reported to the police. This is a very good argument for increased gun ownership! No police, no law enforcement, no law, well I’ll just have to take the “law” into my own hands. Can’t see how that would cause chaos.

    • Scrubbles
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      I don’t think that’s what anyone suggests. However the opposite is what needs to be called out. Why do police departments consistently ask for more and more funding, usually looking for reasons to spend it (see urban assault vehicles, larger and more militarized forces) when crime is down already? If they’re doing fine with the budget they have, why do we need to give them even more money?

      “Defund the police” doesn’t mean we have no police. It means they’re overfunded. Let’s see about defunding them and giving some of that money to other people, like mental health advocates or groups that help with homelessness - some of the main causes of crime. Wouldn’t that mean the police can focus on things they are trained for while also cutting crime down at it’s source? If someone is never desperate enough to mug someone in the first place, doesn’t that mean the crime was prevented?

  • TJA!
    link
    fedilink
    -179 hours ago

    Same with covid, if you don’t look for it, you will not find it.

      • TJA!
        link
        fedilink
        -88 hours ago

        And it’s rather easy to hide some other crimes

          • TJA!
            link
            fedilink
            -37 hours ago

            It seems you are better at that than me. What is it I am saying?

            • @WraithGear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              8
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              That police find crimes? That without police there to stop crime it happens but in secret. But police would only influence traffic infractions. Violent crime relies on civilian reporting. The odds of police just coming across a crime is vanishingly small.