Hacker News Reader

Comment by neurobama | Hacker News Reader

>women being the victims of violence.

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...

View on HN

> 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

You know this just seems like male on male violence to me ;)

Hundreds of black men have died violent deaths because of bad policy written by those who, like you, avert their eyes from reality when it suits them:

https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1651437800842223616

Granted, they don't always do it with a droll non-sequitur.

What reality do you think I'm averting my eyes from?

That heritable factors which correlate with race significantly impact rates of violent crime, including large differences in crime rates between groups; that these differences matter more than sex differences, particularly given taboos around race; and that this knowledge should drive expectations for fair criminal justice policy.

> these differences matter more than sex differences

No they don't.

Yes, they do. Here's why:

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.

> The relevant biological differences between sexes are acknowledged and accepted.

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".

>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.

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

The reality is, if we were using demographic factors to prevent immigrants who cause violence from coming into a country, there's a few that are much more predictive than race.

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.

I could say that no one has seriously proposed "eliminating ALL violent crime perpetrated by immigrants," and you're using this absurd strawman as some sort of shield to avoid discussing race, and that people generally accept other groups who commit violent crime at similar rates to their own, and it's just one group in the US in particular who falls way outside the bell curve (per link theme)... but it's clear you aren't here for earnest or honest discussion, so I'm out.

Oh no you've got me all wrong! I love discussing race, and in particular how made up the concept of whiteness is. It's just most racists don't like to have that discussion, they'd rather try to throw stats around to justify more policing, but the stats don't lie - it'd be by far more effective to focus on and police men of all persuasions, rather than focussing on different made up race categories.

"Made-up race categories" are visible to the naked eye, to principal-component analysis of alleles, to measures of genetic distance, to surveys of visible and invisible traits, to even the smallest child who's only begun to speak.

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.

> "Made-up race categories" are visible to the naked eye, to principal-component analysis of alleles, to measures of genetic distance, to surveys of visible and invisible traits, to even the smallest child who's only begun to speak.

Initial definitions of white, didn't include Scottish and Irish people.

> It's just most racists don't like to have that discussion,

Reply on news.ycombinator.com