Want to know how violent Chicago is? Consider this for the Gay Pride Weekend:
2020: 18 killed, 48 wounded
2019: 5 killed, 55 wounded
2018: 3 killed, 23 wounded
2017: 7 killed, 47 wounded
2016: 8 killed, 50 wounded
2015: 5 killed, 24 wounded
2014: 2 killed, 42 wounded
YTD: 332 killed, 1394 wounded
Doesn’t really sound like something I’d be proud of but each their own I guess.
What people who have never lived in Chicago never understand is that the majority of the city is pretty safe.
The news you hear about violence and shootings are, generally, concentrated on the southwest side and are usually associated with gang violence.
That being said, Chicago is still a highly segregated, corrupt, heavily blue city. There are plenty of other things to attack Chicago for that are true. No need to create a false narrative.
EDIT: Niko, this response is not directed at you specifically. It’s just that this isn’t the first time I’ve seen a post about Chicago being a violent cesspool, and I felt the need to provide some context.
Yeah, those people being slaughtered don’t matter because they live in poor areas. Great argument!
I laughed hard when Rahm Emanuel said Chick-Fil-A didn’t fit with Chicago values.
Is there a particular reason you pointed out a Pride weekend as opposed to any other weekend? At a surface glance, it looks as if you’re attempting to correlate LGBTQ and violence. Or at least plant that image by not providing any context other than some tweet. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but as I said, that how it looks on the surface.
Did it happen at the event(s)? Were there LGBTQ individuals involved? There are questions that I have that don’t seem to be provided by data outside of a weekend event that took place that in turn became some strange talking point involving the LGBTQ community that may or may not have correlation outside of the events weekend.
If you follow the link, it also lists Father’s Day stats. If G&G is going to get touchy anytime people discuss LGBT topics, then might as well change the name to Twitter and be done with it.
It didn’t seem to me that G&G was being touchy because you were talking about LGTBQ in your post, but the focus was more on the context of why you picked that particular angle in your post. That’s all. As the media has shown time and time again, statistics can be manipulated to make any point that you want to simply by changing, adding or omitting certain aspects of the context of which those statistics were taken.
And a few seconds of investigation revealed that there were other stats posted. If people are going to be given the third degree every time LGBT is included, or for not supporting LGBT, then G&G is not the website that I thought it was going to be.