Illinois Road Videos

[Max Rockatansky]

Don't forget the person you are talking to largely completely dismisses first hand experience in lieu of violent crime statistics.

To a large degree, so do I.  Firsthand experience must be evaluated through the lens of statistics in order to make any sort of meaningful comparison.

Right, the simplified version of what I was trying to say above is dismissing either evaluation doesn't give a truly accurate picture. 

[Rothman]

Just a listing off the top of my head of neighborhoods on the Southside that aren't very safe at all.

Washington Park, West Englewood, Englewood, Grand Crossing, Chatham, South Shore, Burnside, Pullman, South Chicago, Fuller Park, South Deering and that's just a start.

Some of those are the southwest and southeast sides.

Again, shameless.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just a listing off the top of my head of neighborhoods on the Southside that aren't very safe at all.

Washington Park, West Englewood, Englewood, Grand Crossing, Chatham, South Shore, Burnside, Pullman, South Chicago, Fuller Park, South Deering and that's just a start.

Some of those are the southwest and southeast sides.

Again, shameless.

At least he didn't say this and to be southnorth or sorth side Chicago.

[Flint1979]

I almost feel like I'm on the south side of Chicago right now in the last 8 hours there's there's been 10 shootings and one stabbing in Saginaw.

[Crash_It]

Just a listing off the top of my head of neighborhoods on the Southside that aren't very safe at all.

Washington Park, West Englewood, Englewood, Grand Crossing, Chatham, South Shore, Burnside, Pullman, South Chicago, Fuller Park, South Deering and that's just a start.

Some of those are the southwest and southeast sides.

Southeast, Southwest it's all the South side dude what are you talking about?

If you watch Chicago area need they reference it this way too.


"18 year old man shot in the 6300 block of south Halsted in the Englewood neighborhood on the city's southwest side"

[Max Rockatansky]

Let's just call it the Sorthside of Chicago from now on:

Sorth by Sorthwest by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[Rothman]

Just a listing off the top of my head of neighborhoods on the Southside that aren't very safe at all.

Washington Park, West Englewood, Englewood, Grand Crossing, Chatham, South Shore, Burnside, Pullman, South Chicago, Fuller Park, South Deering and that's just a start.

Some of those are the southwest and southeast sides.

Southeast, Southwest it's all the South side dude what are you talking about?

If you watch Chicago area need they reference it this way too.


"18 year old man shot in the 6300 block of south Halsted in the Englewood neighborhood on the city's southwest side"

Sinking to new lows.

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of new lows, I want to see this in this next Crash_It feature:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1011454152911176?fs=e&s=cl

[kphoger]

"18 year old man shot in the 6300 block of south Halsted in the Englewood neighborhood on the city's southwest side"

I'm not saying the southwest side isn't a thing.  I'm saying it's a subset of the south side.  So if a neighborhood is on the southwest side, then it is by definition also a southside neighborhood.

[Flint1979]

"18 year old man shot in the 6300 block of south Halsted in the Englewood neighborhood on the city's southwest side"

I'm not saying the southwest side isn't a thing.  I'm saying it's a subset of the south side.  So if a neighborhood is on the southwest side, then it is by definition also a southside neighborhood.

Exactly. When someone says southwest or southeast it's still south.

[Rothman]

"18 year old man shot in the 6300 block of south Halsted in the Englewood neighborhood on the city's southwest side"

I'm not saying the southwest side isn't a thing.  I'm saying it's a subset of the south side.  So if a neighborhood is on the southwest side, then it is by definition also a southside neighborhood.

Exactly. When someone says southwest or southeast it's still south.

Seems to be obvious to everyone but one person...

[hbelkins]

In all honesty, given the moderation history of this forum, I'm surprised that this topic has been allowed to stray so far off its original subject and include as many personal comments as it has.

[hotdogPi]

In all honesty, given the moderation history of this forum, I'm surprised that this topic has been allowed to stray so far off its original subject and include as many personal comments as it has.

This forum isn't overmoderated.

The risk aversion thread also had some... risks that didn't cause the thread to be locked or even have a warning. (Not the coin discussion, that was fine)

[Max Rockatansky]

In all honesty, given the moderation history of this forum, I'm surprised that this topic has been allowed to stray so far off its original subject and include as many personal comments as it has.

This forum isn't overmoderated.

The risk aversion thread also had some... risks that didn't cause the thread to be locked or even have a warning. (Not the coin discussion, that was fine)

I'm kind of surprised this thread didn't spin off a crime statistics thread.  All the same, I don't think many are mistaking this thread to be anything actually serious or even close to what was envisioned in the original post.  Even the latest COVID talk in the Risk Aversion thread has been very tame, no need for moderation on any of this IMO. 

All the same this forum is not very heavily moderated, I'm fine with that. 

[thspfc]

In all honesty, given the moderation history of this forum, I'm surprised that this topic has been allowed to stray so far off its original subject and include as many personal comments as it has.

Noticeable that it's okay when it's newer members being flamed, or members with whom the mods don't agree. To be fair it's difficult to agree with Carhorn.

[Crash_It]

"18 year old man shot in the 6300 block of south Halsted in the Englewood neighborhood on the city's southwest side"

I'm not saying the southwest side isn't a thing.  I'm saying it's a subset of the south side.  So if a neighborhood is on the southwest side, then it is by definition also a southside neighborhood.

Exactly. When someone says southwest or southeast it's still south.

Ok throwing the southwest and southeast sides into the equation, still plenty of good or decent neighborhoods:

Archer Heights
Ashburn
Avalon Park
Beverly
Burnside
Clearing
East Side
Calumet Heights
Garfield Ridge
Hegwisch
McKinley Park
Morgan Park
Mt Greenwood
Pullman
South Deering
Washington Heights
West Elsdon
West Lawn

All of the above have averaged about 4 homicides YoY, same as the north side.


Really the only bad or questionable neighborhoods on the S quadrant as a whole are:

Auburn Gresham
Brighton Park
Chatham
Chicago Lawn
Englewood
Fuller Park
Gage Park
Grand Crossing
New City
Riverdale
Roseland
South Chicago
South Shore
Washington Park
West Pullman
One's that I've italicized.. nothing will happen to you if you are there during the daytime or stick to the commercial areas.

I nearly witnessed a shooting in Chatham
https://youtu.be/hcFRapTV8HQ

[Max Rockatansky]

See, even Crash doesn't take this thread seriously.

[kphoger]

In all honesty, given the moderation history of this forum, I'm surprised that this topic has been allowed to stray so far off its original subject and include as many personal comments as it has.

I'm kind of surprised this thread didn't spin off a crime statistics thread.

I'm siding with |Max Rockatansky| on this.  A split would have been better than a lock or a mass post deletion.

I don't think many are mistaking this thread to be anything actually serious ...

Yeah, I think a thread split would just lend undue credibility to this thread as a whole.

This forum isn't overmoderated.

Noticeable that it's okay when it's newer members being flamed, or members with whom the mods don't agree. To be fair it's difficult to agree with Carhorn.

My opinion is somewhere in the middle of these two comments.

It does seem to be acceptable to flame newer users.  But a good number of newer users, for reasons that seem to be somewhat unique to this odd interest of ours, do stick their own heads on the chopping block.  Being charitable and kind is great, and it's something I really struggle with on here (as many of you know), but I don't necessarily think that an online forum should be expected to pretend that obnoxious and disruptive behavior is acceptable.  Also, whether it's newer users or veteran users, flaming has been addressed when it reaches the point of profanity and all-caps and multiple exclamation points and stuff like that–but we really haven't had that sort of drama for several years now anyway.

As for 'members with whom the mods don't agree', that generally only becomes an issue when the topic of discussion gets heatedly political or when the argument starts reaching a point that seems like the gloves are about to come off.  While I am generally a member 'with whom the mods don't agree' on a lot of issues, I've always been treated with respect by the mods–perhaps in part because I make an effort to write eloquently, I strive to understand the other side, and I rarely let my snark get to '____ is a xenophobic tushy jester' levels.

https://youtu.be/hcFRapTV8HQ

Holy Betamax, Batman!  Is that an Illinois road video?

[abefroman329]

In all honesty, given the moderation history of this forum, I'm surprised that this topic has been allowed to stray so far off its original subject and include as many personal comments as it has.

Noticeable that it's okay when it's newer members being flamed, or members with whom the mods don't agree. To be fair it's difficult to agree with Carhorn.

I don't know which member of the moderating staff handed down my punishment several years ago, but it was probably a mod that I agree with.

On the other hand, stick around long enough and you're allowed to make as many personal attacks as you want without fear of repercussion.

[Max Rockatansky]

The only points I've ever gotten on the forum was related to me being very direct with a certain member of the US 99 fandom.  What I said was in line with that kphoger described and I knew that I was going to get something for it.

[kphoger]

Noticeable that it's okay when it's newer members being flamed, or members with whom the mods don't agree. To be fair it's difficult to agree with Carhorn.

My opinion is somewhere in the middle of these two comments.

It does seem to be acceptable to flame newer users.  But a good number of newer users, for reasons that seem to be somewhat unique to this odd interest of ours, do stick their own heads on the chopping block.  Being charitable and kind is great, and it's something I really struggle with on here (as many of you know), but I don't necessarily think that an online forum should be expected to pretend that obnoxious and disruptive behavior is acceptable.  Also, whether it's newer users or veteran users, flaming has been addressed when it reaches the point of profanity and all-caps and multiple exclamation points and stuff like that–but we really haven't had that sort of drama for several years now anyway.

As for 'members with whom the mods don't agree', that generally only becomes an issue when the topic of discussion gets heatedly political or when the argument starts reaching a point that seems like the gloves are about to come off.  While I am generally a member 'with whom the mods don't agree' on a lot of issues, I've always been treated with respect by the mods–perhaps in part because I make an effort to write eloquently, I strive to understand the other side, and I rarely let my snark get to '____ is a xenophobic tushy jester' levels.

Well, that was unfortunate timing.

12-JUN-2022 – |TheHighwayMan394| had a post that included the jab "Hate-fil-A", in a thread in the Off-Topic board.  This was obviously a sneer at Dan Cathy's publicly stated position on gay marriage.  Of course, gay marriage is inherently a political and/or religious topic and the jab contributed nothing to the conversation other than posturing.  No moderator action ensued.  Why should I expect otherwise, when similar jabs are always tolerated?

15-JUN-2022 – |hbelkins| had a post that included a title change to "Do people who wear masks while out in public look like clowns?", in a thread in the Off-Topid board.  Mask mandates may be a political topic, but looking like a clown because of a face mask–the thing about them mentioned in the title change–is no more political than looking like a clown while wearing a bicycle helmet.  This jab contributed nothing to the conversation other than posturing either.  But, of course, that thread was summarily locked an hour later due to "pointless political posturing".

Now, I think HB "had it coming".  And I'd bet money that HB knew he did, too.  But other, leftist "political posturing", just as "pointless", doesn't even get a warning from a mod.  (I suppose it's possible such warnings are sent via PM, but I'm guessing not.  And, at any rate, that isn't what happened to HB.)

[thspfc]

Noticeable that it's okay when it's newer members being flamed, or members with whom the mods don't agree. To be fair it's difficult to agree with Carhorn.

My opinion is somewhere in the middle of these two comments.

It does seem to be acceptable to flame newer users.  But a good number of newer users, for reasons that seem to be somewhat unique to this odd interest of ours, do stick their own heads on the chopping block.  Being charitable and kind is great, and it's something I really struggle with on here (as many of you know), but I don't necessarily think that an online forum should be expected to pretend that obnoxious and disruptive behavior is acceptable.  Also, whether it's newer users or veteran users, flaming has been addressed when it reaches the point of profanity and all-caps and multiple exclamation points and stuff like that–but we really haven't had that sort of drama for several years now anyway.

As for 'members with whom the mods don't agree', that generally only becomes an issue when the topic of discussion gets heatedly political or when the argument starts reaching a point that seems like the gloves are about to come off.  While I am generally a member 'with whom the mods don't agree' on a lot of issues, I've always been treated with respect by the mods–perhaps in part because I make an effort to write eloquently, I strive to understand the other side, and I rarely let my snark get to '____ is a xenophobic tushy jester' levels.

Well, that was unfortunate timing.

12-JUN-2022 – |TheHighwayMan394| had a post that included the jab "Hate-fil-A", in a thread in the Off-Topic board.  This was obviously a sneer at Dan Cathy's publicly stated position on gay marriage.  Of course, gay marriage is inherently a political and/or religious topic and the jab contributed nothing to the conversation other than posturing.  No moderator action ensued.  Why should I expect otherwise, when similar jabs are always tolerated?

15-JUN-2022 – |hbelkins| had a post that included a title change to "Do people who wear masks while out in public look like clowns?", in a thread in the Off-Topid board.  Mask mandates may be a political topic, but looking like a clown because of a face mask–the thing about them mentioned in the title change–is no more political than looking like a clown while wearing a bicycle helmet.  This jab contributed nothing to the conversation other than posturing either.  But, of course, that thread was summarily locked an hour later due to "pointless political posturing".

Now, I think HB "had it coming".  And I'd bet money that HB knew he did, too.  But other, leftist "political posturing", just as "pointless", doesn't even get a warning from a mod.  (I suppose it's possible such warnings are sent via PM, but I'm guessing not.  And, at any rate, that isn't what happened to HB.)

We know how it is - rules are rules except for when they're not.

[abefroman329]

Mask mandates may be a political topic, but looking like a clown because of a face mask–the thing about them mentioned in the title change–is no more political than looking like a clown while wearing a bicycle helmet.

...disagree.

Of course, (a) the modmins are human and make mistakes from time to time and (b) complaining that the modmins are biased against you or your personal political tribe is as sad as complaining that the officials are biased against your favorite sports team.

[hbelkins]

It should be worth noting that a liberal is the one who made masks political by accusing me of making that thread political. I just was adding a further bit of levity to a silly thread -- or as I said, adding clarity and context. I didn't politicize the subject in any way.

[Rothman]

It should be worth noting that a liberal is the one who made masks political by accusing me of making that thread political. I just was adding a further bit of levity to a silly thread -- or as I said, adding clarity and context. I didn't politicize the subject in any way.

Meh. Phtbbt.