Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Just got banned, brought back memories

Just got banned, brought back memories (Page 2)
Thread Tools
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2020, 05:58 PM
 

I don't know what Kenosha is, I was just being a wiseacre.

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference...a-town-4069700

I live in a city of 50,000.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2020, 08:03 PM
 
subego’s Handy Guide to Municipal Governance.

     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2020, 11:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Are there ANY cities that are 'red'?
The American electorate is strongly split into rural GOP and urban Democratic voters, the two correlate very, very strongly.

I don’t remember the exact number, but according to 538 above a certain population density, which actually wasn’t that high, only Democrats have been elected to Congress. But perhaps they only mentioned that number on their podcast. The best I could do was this article on the subject where after the 2018 election only a single Republican is left in a neighborhood that classifies as urban-suburban. In dense suburban neighborhoods the Democratic advantage is now 4.5-to-1. Even in sparse suburban neighborhoods the Democrats have a 1.4-to-1 advantage. This turns on its head for rural-suburban and rural-rural neighborhoods.

While those are congressional seats, it is reasonable to assume that this is reflected in city governments and mayorships as well.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2020, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
subego’s Handy Guide to Municipal Governance.

Except that correlation ≠ causation.
The move away from organized religion is a global trend and the US is simply a laggard, and most countries have developed their social safety net way before the people became less and less religious. In fact, in a lot of them the churches were (and in some countries still are) strongly involved.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2020, 10:14 PM
 
I sense a great distance between what I posted and this reply.

For example...

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
and most countries have developed their social safety net way before the people became less and less religious.
How does this even relate? My graph has no temporal axis.

If it helps, the causal agent in the graph is population density. I’m positing the need for religious or government institutions is a function of population density.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2020, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How does this even relate? My graph has no temporal axis.

If it helps, the causal agent in the graph is population density. I’m positing the need for religious or government institutions is a function of population density.
I understand that you haven't included a time axis, but urbanization is a process that happens in time, i. e. people tend to move to urban environments with larger density. Concurrently (i. e. again related to time), there is a trend to people affiliating less with a specific religion or at least a specific religious organization.

And I don't think you graph held true in earlier times where government programs increased in size, e. g. during the New Deal era where people were much more religious. Similarly to the US, many other countries that for the most part gained their social security net while people were very much religious, although in most there was a process of secularization. So I think there is a temporal dimension to your argument. That is, I think your need curves are time-dependent and it seems to me you have plotted the curve for 2020 rather than 1940. And while that may be true now to a degree, I think the two are only correlated, but not causally linked.

Moreover, I am not sure the central thesis of your back-of-envelope graph even holds true. I don't think people need religious institutions in sparsely populated areas more than in more densely populated areas, it is just that churches and the like used to be the watering hole where people assembled and formed communal bonds. Those can and have been replaced by other institutions, be it after-school sports for kids or social interactions that happen entirely online. Similarly, I don't think people who move to cities need more government institutions, people who live in a lot of poorer rural areas rely on government support to make ends meet. Urban environments offer a whole host of alternatives, from sports teams to gyms to social movements to your kids's school's PTA. Few if any have to do with the state.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2020, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
... it is just that churches and the like used to be the watering hole where people assembled and formed communal bonds. Those can and have been replaced by other institutions, be it after-school sports for kids or social interactions that happen entirely online.
For some reason, this got me thinking. About applying for the forums to gain church status. Plenty of strong beliefs/opinions around here. We could become tax-exempt ... oh wait. We don't pay any taxes. But we'd have cool letter heads.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2020, 12:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
For some reason, this got me thinking. About applying for the forums to gain church status. Plenty of strong beliefs/opinions around here. We could become tax-exempt ... oh wait. We don't pay any taxes. But we'd have cool letter heads.
Well, I'm in favor of churches being taxed, for otherwise the state gets into the business deciding what constitutes are a religion and what doesn't. Since would not be an assault on religious freedom, as far as I understand according to US law to retain the tax-free status there are some limitations on political speech. I'd rather balance in favor of free speech, but take away the tax exemption. Plus, there are quite a few megachurches whose heads seem to freeload on the donations. And when the church is big/important enough, authorities often look away.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2020, 12:31 AM
 
Let’s ignore the red line for a second.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Similarly, I don't think people who move to cities need more government institutions...
I’m baffled by this assertion.

My city and county taken together have over 130 agencies, boards, and departments.

A small town may not have 130 people.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2020, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let’s ignore the red line for a second.
Your graph puts two things in context — remove one line and you remove the context.
I interpreted your graph as meaning that in regions with low population density, religious institutions take over the role of the state and vice versa.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My city and county taken together have over 130 agencies, boards, and departments.

A small town may not have 130 people.
Yes, but a small town has much less authority, and some of the corresponding tasks are taken over by, say, the county and perhaps the state — and are less efficient on average. Research is quite clear on this question: cities are more efficient than rural areas, which means you e. g. need less gas stations or supermarkets per capita in cities than in rural areas. So yes, in absolute numbers a city has vastly more resources, but at least statistically speaking, less people are involved in running a city than the same number of people living in rural areas.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2020, 08:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
per capita
There’s a reason my graph doesn’t say per capita.

That’s because it’s not what I’m talking about.

I do not have the energy to spend this much effort clarifying the most basic of points. There is no hope for this discussion.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,