jam40jeff

Sure, it wouldn't mean Cleveland's population at a given radius would nearly double, but it almost certainly would be significantly higher.

Are you trolling? When population is spread east and west because it can't go north, then you have dense areas forced further from the center, while the entire northern side has a density of 0. I fail to see what's difficult to understand about this.

DEPACincy's numbers show a loss of 567, not 2000.

It doesn't affect the total population as much as the population at a given radius. The population is more spread out (especially to the east and west) than it likely would have otherwise been.

Yes, but Cleveland has these areas as well (such as the salt mines and most of the area surrounding the river south of the Flats.) This is in addition to the fact that about 40% of the 5 mile radius is made up of Lake Erie.

Yeah, some areas have been decimated over the years. They were originally dense, but have been "Detroitified." Here is the area of Carnegie you're likely thinking of (between E. 55th and E. 79th) in 1952 and 2015: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.500679041021755/-81.64055228233336/1952/17 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.500679041021755/-81.64055228233336/2015/17 And some others... E. 55th and Woodland: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.487507781446794/-81.6495430469513/1952/17 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.487507781446794/-81.6495430469513/2015/17 The "Forgotten Triangle": https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.48651922623096/-81.64487063884735/1952/18 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.48651922623096/-81.64487063884735/2015/18 Hough: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.50916380297514/-81.6344153881073/1952/17 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.50916380297514/-81.6344153881073/2015/17 Doan's Corners: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.503487331070204/-81.61523759365082/1952/18 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.503487331070204/-81.61523759365082/2015/18

How do you know who listens to which music? There's also plenty of great rap music out there that's not misogynistic.

I said your comparison was a false equivalency, not that rap music is beyond criticism. In fact, it faces plenty.

Bro-country comes to mind...

False equivalency. Nobody is "banning" Baby, It's Cold Outside. Certain privately owned radio stations have chosen to stop playing it, but it's certainly not illegal to do so. You're totally free to start your own radio station and play Baby, It's Cold Outside 24/7/365. It would probably be a hit among Trumpies, at least until the next "War on Christmas outrage" comes along and they all move on from your radio station.

Interesting...Ohio is one of only a few states where not a single locale within the state has a rate of commuting to work alone by car of less than 80%.

(1) It didn't generalize the actions to half the population. We've been over that numerous times in this thread. (2) It may change a few of the bad apples' behavior, but more than likely it is meant to raise awareness to the men who don't support this but idly stand by and watch it happen so that they can be more active in trying to prevent it or address it when they see it happening.

The difference being that the kids have an excuse since the rotary phone is obsolete technology and not in use anymore. The adults who haven't learned how to use a cell phone are much worse because that is current technology that is ubiquitous.

I think income segregation is a bad thing, but I'm not sure any of this proves the direction of causation. It's quite possible that hyper poverty drives income segregation, rather than the other way around, as people with the means flee neighborhoods that have an increasing crime rate. I know there are other reasons people flee neighborhoods, especially racial, but I believe this is what we have seen in areas of the east and southeast sides of Cleveland, where people are still fleeing en masse what are already racially homogeneous neighborhoods.

They meant 13th and Superior, right?

Not to mention the War on Christmas and how the most difficult thing to be these days is a straight white male! When will straight white male Christians ever catch a break?

That's pretty funny, but I'm not sure there's much to be gleaned from it otherwise. I don't look to 4chan for political knowledge.

That makes sense. Although, I do tend to think that finding the cause of a problem if possible will surely allow you to more effectively eliminate it, but that may just be the engineer in me (and not be as applicable in less black and white social situations.)

It obviously connected with the way some men think.

Isn't finding the cause of a problem always part of finding the solution?

I don't disagree with this. But back to the original point, I don't think if a brand for women made a commercial showing girls picking on another girl in school and asked them to stop doing it that it was cause a bigger outcry than this ad. In fact, I think the reaction would actually be less intense.

Then why are you making the false equivalency claim that if this commercial was made about women wearing revealing clothes there would be an outcry?

Correct. I only replied to you because I did agree with the principle of what you wrote.

I completely agree with this, but in the context of this discussion I don't see how it's relevant. Ads discouraging self-deprecating behaviors often come across as preachy. This ad was not doing that and "toxic masculinity" or whatever we wish to call it is not addressing those types of behaviors. @Brutus_buckeye, the comment about all behaviors while drunk being "equally wrong" is completely off the mark. Being drunk, especially in public, may certainly be irresponsible and increase the chances of something bad happening to you, but there are clearly varying levels of "wrong" actions that can be committed while drunk. Being taken advantage of while drunk is hardly the same as trying to take advantage of someone else while drunk which is in turn hardly the same as shooting someone in a drunken rage.

Yes, but that's the whole point. The sole example people seem to be able to come up with for a commercial about women's "bad behaviors" is how they dress. But that wouldn't be ripe for a commercial such as this just like it wouldn't be for men. This commercial didn't show men sagging their pants or wearing Bird Dogs as examples of how they need to improve. It was solely about them hurting others.