And you're wrong when you say there are no calls from racists to restrict male immigration. Of course, most racists want to restrict both male and female immigration. But one constantly sees complaints specifically about how many male immigrants are entering the USA. And I have seen it suggested (though only rarely) that immigration should be allowed for females only.
What I'm saying, doesn't require that.
What I'm saying is if demographic factors are fair game for immigration restriction, there's one very clear one that is often overlooked by racists.
This comparison between racism and sexism doesn't work very well. Sometimes they're very analogous, sometimes they aren't.
That said. Apparently, we're talking about 1% of the population if the article is to be believed. So we're not really talking about all males here, nor even a majority of males for that matter.
Of course that also means we're not talking about anything close to a majority of black americans, but that's a whole other discussion.
Cheers.
Racists support immigration from white men and women, but if racists really care so much about demographics they should only support immigration from white women, since they're much less violent than men.
OK, this is a reasonable enough point and deserves a reasonable response, but I think the response is quite simple:
As long as both white men and white women are contributing positively to society, and improving the future demographics of the country, why wouldn't racists welcome both? If they limited immigration to only the less-violent female whites, they'd be missing out on the net-positive contribution of white males, and thereby shooting themselves in the foot, and for what? A demographic shift in the short-term that will lead to reduced violence. But also the troubles that come along with gender-imbalance. And in the long-term, the population will go back to being roughly 50:50 male-female anyway.
As objectionable as some might find it, tearing apart families through immigration policy is already possible. If the idea is that immigration is bad because it brings more crime, the conclusion is clear, if we evaluate things objectively.
White is a fluid category with no real objective basis. I recently saw a very amusing argument between an American, English and Polish troupe. The American said that Poland was a great example of a pure white ethnostate. The Englishman said the American was an idiot - Polish people were Slavic. The Polish nationalist said they were both idiots - Polish people are Polish, not Slavic nor White.
I challenge anyone to come up with an objective definition of whiteness.
By come into being I meant conceived. Like, egg meets sperm. But this is really a very big tangent.
Incorrect. Read what I said again.
But in the meantime I will play along with this tangent, since I guess it could be fun, too.
Embracing a new definition of the White race does not cause more white females to be brought into being (at least, not in any easily predictable way). It simply causes females that had already been brought into being to be reclassified from non-White to White.
And their fathers would have to be White, too.
At no point in time are there White females who do not have White fathers.
That also seems to suggest there's no objective definition of white, which also seems to suggest that any claim that all white people need to have a white father would be utter garbage.
No, I was saying you could have a static definition that accepted the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations.
I will also say now that there are many definitions of the White race and that to whatever extent there is one "the definition" of the White race, it changes over time, too.
And you have at the end made a logical error. Just because there are a range of possible definitions of the White race does not mean that all possible definitions of the White race are acceptable. Just because there are components of and aspects of the definition of the White race that my change, does not mean that there are not components and aspects which may not change. And, while there may be edge cases, in general, one needs to have White parents to be White. That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible.
Another way of saying there's edge cases for a rule is that the rule isn't a rule at all.
> That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
Not true! You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white. Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective. The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly. I'd consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, for example, the 100th generation of White people would be different from the 10,000th generation of white people.
White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now.
> You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white
not a contradiction
> Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective
Biological race is just ancestry.
> The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly
What about ancestry.
> d consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
I'm not sure whether they would have. Doesn't matter either way. Racialist beliefs could have a totally illogical origin and yet be entirely correct. Beware the fallacy fallacy.
The white race is continually being formed, which is evidenced by the changing attitudes towards whether Italians, Greeks, Irish, Scottish and Polish people are white - amongst others. You'll find a tonne of people that disagree over whether Polish people, and others, are white. There's no central authority that definitively decides.
> Biological race is just ancestry.
What's the scientific definition of race? Feel free to use biology papers for this discussion.
> Genetic variation is greater within groups than between them :^) There is no biological justification for racial groupings :^) Race is purely a social construct :^)
Which admittedly isn't much of a definition but does make it clear (incorrectly) that there is no valid biological justification for racialism.
I define a race just like dictionaries did before the race-doesn't-exist-except-as-a-social-construct movement was established did:
>a group of people having common ancestors
> A race: a people who have been largely or totally isolated (in terms of procreation) from other peoples for a very great number of generations.
Which is still very far from perfect. Definitions are difficult.
sorry not gonna do any maps, doesn't seem right to put 5x more effort into this conversation than you are
Thanks for playing!
What year did they originate and where, by the way?
I don't think I could make a good map of where the White race has lived over time even if I watnted to. I think it started somewhere in Europe in like 15,000 BC (very roughly), then spread throughout Europe, then had a colonial period during the last millennia where it colonised all over the world. Certainly I'm very far from an expert on this and it would depend obviously on the exact definition of the White race being used.
But let me stop you right there and ask you, if you think the white race is a real thing. Because if it requires at a minimum to be "largely" isolated from others, but you and I can't collectively identify with certainty where or when that isolation happened - I don't think either of us can definitively even say if "white" is a real race based on those requirements.
Ok! When and where?
I mean at this point this is just hilarious, because you've said white people are a real thing, and they were isolated from other people at some point (15000 BC???) which made the race form but you can't say exactly when or where that happened. So you, supposedly great at "formal logic" have no idea when or where this thing started existing, its existence by your definition would have been passed down to now from that point through ancestry, and yet you are somehow certain that it exists.
Why do you think this?
I don't believe in rational market players with full knowledge and equal information any more than I believe all violent men had externalities which were causative.
But I do believe poverty and epigenetic influences can exist.
There's a surprisingly prevalent, but misguided, school of thought which asserts that disparities in outcomes across gender or racial lines imply sexism or racism. This concept is closely associated with the "tabula rasa" or "blank slate" theory[0]. Thomas Sowell wrote an entire book that debunks this idea ("Discrimination and Disparities").
So what do you do with this information? If a crime is committed, you can guess with some accuracy it was likely committed by a man, but you can't arrest a random man and think he is likely the criminal.
Any attempts to preemptively limit male behavior is going to affect a lot more innocent men than guilty men.
However, if we are limiting people based on potential for violent criminality, one category leaps out for effectively applying restrictions to, and that's men.
I'm totally against applying those limits based on potential violent criminality, however.
The guy that shot Kate in SF
It's not like he found the gun THERE. He didn't even find it that day. He was just playing with a random gun that wasn't his, in a crowd of people. Ya, accident.
Don’t put it past them.
> Convict women in Australia were British prisoners whom the government increasingly sent out during the era of transportation (1787-1868) in order to develop the penal outpost of New South Wales (now a state of Australia) into a viable colony.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_women_in_Australia
Oh?
Basically, monogamy breaks the ability of sexual selection to "dilute" bad genes with good ones. I'm not anti-monogamy, but it's a social technology which has tradeoffs (this being one of them).
1. Racists insist that we should examine all demographic factors when trying to identify who the criminals are
2. They shy away from the pure fact that violent crime is almost exclusively perpetuated by men.
3. There are no calls from them for a restriction on male immigration.
4. Using "but" and "yet" between 1 and 2 and 3 shows you believe that 2 and 3 delegitimize 1.
Regarding point 1, I think you are mostly correct, although not all racists would agree. ("Not all racists!")
Regarding point 2, I think you are certainly wrong insofar as there is no lack of admission. But I think your main point is really implied from 3 which is that racists only seem to focus on racial group differences rather than sex differences for violent crimes, which has been used as one of the major "scientific" justifications for racism while ignoring that the same argumemt when applied to men vs. women would show that women are better than men. And this is certainly an interesting point as you said.
Regarding 3 itself — and not your implied argument I expanded on above — it is also not exactly correct. Most racists would find female immigrants more favorable than male immigrants.
In any case, regarding your main point, I believe mosts racists would say that males "equal out" females in some way, for example that men created medicine, or would point out that at the very least society cannot continue without men from a biological point of view or some other explaination, and these explainations are not relevant wrt race.
All this said, I think the way you made this argument with its multiple subtly different claims is part of what generated so many responses. Not that that is inherntly bad.
>it also leads immediately to the observation that white men didn't invent agriculture, the wheel, philosophy, writing.
Not all racists are white. leaving that aside, white racists would say that white men perfected agriculture, the wheel, philosophy ect.
>If men can be excused because they did great things, then why not other categories of people?
Based on the point I made above, they might say that men are excused because they are continualy useful, while other races did great things but only because white people were not there to do it first becasue they were not yet civilized, but once they became civilized then there is no need for for others. (Although there is a few hundred year gap between the begining of western European civilization and the start of major European advancements, which I would put at about 1500, but you can imagine such an arguemt or similar argument in any case.)
Not true, some racists consider Greeks to be "white" or "european" or "western".
> Based on the point I made above, they might say that men are excused because they are continualy useful,
Actually, no. For a long time the "white-est" people in the world were barbarians from the north with immodest women and sickly-pale skin.
There's also the so-called "dark ages" when Islamic science was doing fine and Europe was languishing.
Arabic numerals, anyone?
>when trying to identify who the criminals are, but they shy away from the pure fact that violent crime is almost exclusively perpetuated by men.
I am not a cop, but I would be very surprised if a violent crime happens where it is unknown if the suspect is a man or a woman, that most cops (around the world) give it a 50-50 chance that the criminal is a man or woman.
I would bet they will start by looking for a man, all else being equal.
[citation required]
I'm pretty sure they call for restricting immigration of both sexes. Besides, if you believe violence is partly genetic, then a sex-based immigration restriction is a solution that lasts only one generation.
What if it's a trait carried on the Y chromosome?
Or would you concede that there is a genetic element in the gender disparity? And would you then also recognise that factor in the racial disparity?
I also want to add that if the violent crime rate of White men was the biggest problem we faced as a society, well what a wonderful problem that would be to have. That would be a utopia compared to the challenges being faced by non-White and increasingly multiracial populations around the world right now.
I saw your comment - you don't understand how bayesianism works. Look up "odds ratios" for the most salient concept that you're missing here.
If P(x|!y) = 0.0000001 and P(x|y) = 0.01, this relationship is extremely powerful even though it's "weak" in the sense you're using.
Sure, compute the odds ratio for committing a violent crime due to being male. It is large, which in plain English means "most violent criminals are male".
But that doesn't mean the probability of a randomly chosen male being a violent criminal is large. It's still small, because you have to multiply the odds ratio by a very small prior (since the prior probability of a randomly chosen person being a violent criminal is very small). So if all you know about a person is that they are male, you still have only a very weak prediction that they might be a violent criminal. In other words, in plain English, "most males are not violent criminals".
What you need to have a strong predictor is some factor X for which not just the odds ratio but the posterior probability of being a violent criminal, conditioned on X, is large, i.e., for which you can say "most X's are violent criminals". Being male is not such a factor.
What sort of violence are we talking about? Men are murdered far more often than women across the globe, at a ratio of about 4 to 1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender
Men are slightly more likely than women to experience domestic violence in the US, per the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs/NISVSReport...
However, woman are about twice as likely to become victims of sexual violence:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfa...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender
You know this just seems like male on male violence to me ;)
https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1651437800842223616
Granted, they don't always do it with a droll non-sequitur.
No they don't.
No one believes that since most imprisoned murderers are men, there's systemic anti-male bias in the justice system. The relevant biological differences between sexes are acknowledged and accepted. I'm asking HNers to accept similar well-studied differences between ancestral genetic groups.
Refusal to acknowledge and accept these differences has already led to bad policy, such as de-policing America's black communities, which has cost hundreds of black men their lives in just the last few years. A minority of this minority is allowed to run wild and victimize their neighbors and society at large. This is plainly unsustainable. We can take our medicine now and accept the need to police violent criminals, even if they are black, or we can keep our heads in the sand until something far worse boils over. This is the core message of all my comments on this link and race issues at large.
Except if they were accepted in the way racists wanted race to be accepted, we'd crack down hard on freedom of movement for men.
A consistent racist would want us to pull our head out of the sand and more rigorously police the violent criminals that are, almost always men.
The data on the outsized violence of men is much more consistent, and dramatic, than the violence of any "ancestral genetic group".
Bananas. Where do you find this stuff?
>A consistent racist would want us to pull our head out of the sand and more rigorously police the violent criminals that are, almost always men.
We already police men way more than women, what's your point?
>The data on the outsized violence of men is much more consistent, and dramatic, than the violence of any "ancestral genetic group".
Read the last part again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35943243
First, we'd ban all men.
Second, we'd ban everyone under the age of 30. Maybe everyone under 50 if we were feeling really fascist.
With these two evidence based restrictions, we'd effectively eliminate violent crime perpetrated by immigrants. That's the stark reality, and its so funny to see racists try to avoid these points.
> We already police men way more than women, what's your point?
We would need to put more police in places where men congregate to be truly consistent - like software companies. The de-policing of men's places of work like these, may be putting us at risk, after all.
I'm just being realistic.
What was the Human Genome Project for? Your mockery and denial, I guess. Why have scientists spent lifetimes improving DNA sequencing technologies, carefully gathering data, and drawing conclusion based on the evidence? So you could laugh it all off, I suppose.
Your refusal to acknowledge reality fails to budge reality. The natural world doesn't care about race or sex solipsism. Policy founded on reality-denial will always eventually fail and be replaced. Whether it fails hard or soft and what is allowed to replace it is the question of our time in America.
Initial definitions of white, didn't include Scottish and Irish people.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101485/non-german-crime...
By the way, if we only consider non-Hispanic whites (this is a state-defined census category) America's homicide rate is 2.2:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/05/21/how-amer...
Yes, the kind of stuff called soci-economic factors.
> 40% of male homicide suspects in Germany are non-German
Okay to the homocide rate of "real" Germans is about 40% lower then?
Can you not just accept that "white" (however you like to define the term presently) men commit significantly more murders in America than in Germany?
Sure, I agree and I'm pointing out reasons as to why that is. I have never before heard gun policy lumped in with "socioeconomic factors."
My original point is that socioeconomic factors alone don't explain the gap in murder rates between e.g. black women and white men in the US and in other countries. Your argument to the contrary is woefully insufficient. Comparisons between the same race and sex in two similar cultures at similar income levels isn't enough.
We already know wealth and income correlate somewhat with crime. This effect is seen within racial groups. What we don't know is why large gaps exist between different groups at similar income levels. The effect is particularly stark and peculiar when it comes to violent crimes e.g. rape which have nothing to do with stealing to feed oneself.
Male immigration is too profitable, so nobody with a voice would want to curb it.
Even within the same income bracket, the black homicide rate is an order of magnitude larger than the white one (and after 1975, the homicide rate of the richest blacks is larger than of the poorest whites):
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/16/racial-differe... , table 6