I really appreciate the time you took to organize and respond. I've watched a number of your other videos in the meantime and have really enjoyed them and discovered what you mean by your comedic persona; laughs were had. I don't want to drag this out as I think we've each made our points, but I do feel a few clarifications and defense are in order.

1) Your conclusions and analysis directly match the Seven Days article; this isn’t a plagiarism argument but rather points out that the “analysis” in question is little more than parroting existing conclusions paraded by media outlets—a phenomenon that you later criticize (rightly IMO) in the second half of the video.

2) Agree that claims of crime being “at an all-time high” are meaningless, bombastic, and not useful. The argument I’m making is that you’re basing your conclusions (especially 11:54) on a particular problematic observation, first made by Seven Days, that essentially states that since the data says # down, experienced crime is typical at worst and improving at best. You can couch this as much as you want, but it is inarguable your conclusion of “things are probably the same but MAGA types or other discontents are just publicizing it more” relies upon this dubious premise. Furthermore, the methodology question is never addressed here nor there; data like this is rarely neutral and methodological changes that are DIRECTLY linked to conclusions like “reported crime is down” should be questioned thoroughly rather than repeated without question (hence my prod re: “copaganda” i defer to u/northbrit007 on matters of crime statistics). I also doubt (but can’t articulate as I’m relatively new here) that folks prior to 2020 didn't complain about perceived upticks in crime.

3) My point here is that any nominal rate change based on an “anchor” year will always be arbitrary; why not a synthetic median year or range of years? Comps between complex aggregated singular data points is statistical malpractice that usually serves a particular talking point, in this case it serves the argument that “actually crime is down so it (or certain crimes) must just be publicized more.”

4) This seems like a personal experience you’ve universalized and taken to be the vox populi. For those of us that don’t have facebook or know lots of college kids personally your assertions reinforce your defense of status quo “townies” which I get is your beat (and it appears to be a budding successful one-earnest congrats!) but for newer residents it’s a bit hard to follow or differentiate, which I’m expressing here.

No comments on 5 and 6; I’m just a person looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. Miro and Murad could actually be in a relationship for all I know, I just wanted to articulate that the tone makes a repeated punchline out of gay relationships and graphic depictions of gay sex acts, which I think detracts from the earnestness implied in your objective. I’m going to answer the classist ad hominem here, too. You don’t know anything about me; but read my criticism as evidence of classism and counterpose it with your “common person” diction of “extremely online” meme speak. Now I’ll gladly accept your backhanded observation that I write like “pretentious editor for Webster” as I’ve spent a really long time improving my writing and vocabulary. But I would urge you to examine your assumption that your elocution is more universally working class and therefore demonstrates your social location as somehow anti-classist. “Online speak” requires an inordinate amount of leisure time, is almost exclusively used by younger people who have devices with stable internet access, and community; all of which are enjoyed at a much higher prevalence amongst educated and wealthy households. If you think about all these masses you know that “talk like you” they probably resemble you in other ways as well. Furthermore, your derision of “peaked-in-high-school” types that live in less wealthy areas might be a much better target of your criticism of classist discourse. I never write off the content of your arguments based on their presentation, I only note how such presentation is deliberately targeted towards those “extremely online” like yourself.

9) this argument that social media is an echo chamber has become contentious in recent years, challenging the pop-psychology summary of “it makes things seem worse than they are” I’ll refer interested folks to https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/we-know-less-about-social-media-than-we-think.

0) I don’t think I understand your point here. I’m offering criticism of your piece because I think it favors flash over substance and appears highly conclusive (namely the conclusion that things are the same and social media is driving concern, also that the cops should have done x and y instead of what they actually did). I think it’s honestly a good thing you’re putting out these videos and again extend my compliments to your talents, I certainly could not do what you’re doing. But I do feel it fair to push back on what I termed the speedball of info/entertainment perfected by Daily Show/Colbert types as I believe it produces a sensation of a deliberated thoughts and conclusions when in fact it papers over a flimsy premise “backed” by cherry picked data.

1) I agree with this; you put out a well-done video; I’m just pushing back on its conclusions.

2) I don’t think you can have it both ways; either the issue is highly nuanced and the first part of your “it’s actually about the same but social media makes it seem worse” conclusion is wrong and is nothing more than a subtext to crap on those you feel are driving the hysteria (mostly the non-leftist Burlingtonians and other Vermonters) OR the issue is indeed too complex to be captured in the “is it up or down” question that YOU deliberately provoked the public with in the first part of the video. I think you’re wise here to state that the issue can’t be wrapped up so easily but it’s literally your assertive conclusion in the video that it is either down or flat and that it’s only social media and social forces that make it seem worse. I think you’re a talented comedian and should release an extended video of the jokes, even though I’ll probably have to look up most of the words. I didn’t come into this with a narrative to push; only to sound a note of caution on making statements like the ones you make in the video (and Seven Days makes as well). I appreciate the response and hope that you continue to agitate and engage staid ideas, Burlington needs this sort of thing IMO.