3 ms·

I'm not even sure why you're arguing about this. The OP's point was that negative generalisations can be true. You haven't disputed this point, only reacted bad

I'm not even sure why you're arguing about this. The OP's point was that negative generalisations can be true. You haven't disputed this point, only reacted badly to a particular example whilst admitting it's indeed true. There is no meaningful semantic difference between the statements "Jamaicans are on average more homicidal than Japanese" and "Jamaicans have a higher homicide rate than the Japanese". Your outrage is exactly the kind of behaviour that so many in this thread are decrying: the OP said something that is indisputably real and you reacted by saying "you can and should be banned from platforms". You are literally trying to expel someone from the internet for saying something true, because you feel a statement of statistical fact implies things you don't like or can't accept (but which weren't actually stated anyway). You're mis-using facts to represent one culture as more violent than another, and implying that it's a trait of the people, not a much more complicated result of economic and legal differences. It's an incredibly racist and insidious thing to say. Maybe it's easier on you if the example only discusses white people? If I said the homicide rate amongst Americans is much higher than amongst the Swiss, I'd be making a negative but true generalisation about Americans (it's 5.35 vs 0.54 murders per 100,000 inhabitants). What is it that causes such a difference in rate? Is it economic differences? Surely not. Legal differences? Perhaps, but there are plenty of guns in Switzerland and violence is equally illegal in both countries. If anything the USA has much harsher punishments so it stands to reason it should have a lower rate. If you insist on refusing to consider the huge bundle of intuitively defined and often nameless attributes we collectively call "culture" then not only are you wilfully blinding yourself, but you are finding yourself literally attacking and trying to silence people who are less intellectually limited. This sort of behaviour is not a good thing to practice.

TheDong 8y ago
I am perfectly fine with you saying "the homicide rate amongst Americans is much higher than amongst the Swiss". I would not be fine with the similar, but different phrase "American people are more homicidal than the swiss", assuming no further context. One of those is clearly meant to discuss a fact. The other is meant to play up nationalistic tensions. I know negative generalizations can be supported by fact. I'm fine with those facts being presented and discussed, I'm just not fine with the facts being obscured and rephrased such that it serves more to create a climate of racism and nationalism. Context and phrasing do matter, especially when it comes to hateful and divisive speech.
- repolfx 8y ago
  The distinction you're looking for doesn't exist. The two sentences would be considered equivalent by anyone who isn't wildly over-attuned to political correctness issues.
  - dang 8y ago
    I don't agree with that, and it's relevant to this forum in an important way. There's a wide spectrum between my saying "that's false" or "you're mistaken", vs. saying "you're a liar". The distinction here is a similar one. It doesn't need to be a moral distinction. When negative statements are made neutrally, discussion goes much better than when they are made pejoratively. This entire site, if not the entire internet, is evidence of that.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      I'm afraid I genuinely don't see the difference between the two sentences Dan, it's not an attempt to be awkward. I'm sure if you fed them into a mechanical parser/semantic analyzer they'd reduce to the same predicate logic. Let's start by agreeing that "Americans" and "American people" are equivalent, at least when discussing statistical facts about populations. Then the two sentences can be rewritten as: "the homicide rate amongst the American people is much higher than amongst the Swiss" and "American people are more homicidal than the swiss" or taking out the nouns: "the X rate amongst Y is much higher than amongst the Z" vs "Y is more X than Z" which I am 100% sure, if put to people in a neutral poll, would be considered the same. But I'm also mystified as to the wider goal. TheDong admits the two constructions are similar, yet his reaction is extreme - one is fine and the other triggers calls for banning people completely, labels of "hateful and divisive" and so on. That kind of unpredictable and over the top behaviour triggered by almost non-existent differences in phrasing is negative to Hacker News, and clearly violates the various guidelines about reading what people say in good faith, let alone the one about reacting to the strongest possible interpretation! Given that TheDong knows how similar they are, one must wonder what the purpose of treating them so differently is.

TheDong 8y ago

I am perfectly fine with you saying "the homicide rate amongst Americans is much higher than amongst the Swiss". I would not be fine with the similar, but different phrase "American people are more homicidal than the swiss", assuming no further context. One of those is clearly meant to discuss a fact. The other is meant to play up nationalistic tensions. I know negative generalizations can be supported by fact. I'm fine with those facts being presented and discussed, I'm just not fine with the facts being obscured and rephrased such that it serves more to create a climate of racism and nationalism. Context and phrasing do matter, especially when it comes to hateful and divisive speech.

repolfx 8y ago
The distinction you're looking for doesn't exist. The two sentences would be considered equivalent by anyone who isn't wildly over-attuned to political correctness issues.
- dang 8y ago
  I don't agree with that, and it's relevant to this forum in an important way. There's a wide spectrum between my saying "that's false" or "you're mistaken", vs. saying "you're a liar". The distinction here is a similar one. It doesn't need to be a moral distinction. When negative statements are made neutrally, discussion goes much better than when they are made pejoratively. This entire site, if not the entire internet, is evidence of that.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    I'm afraid I genuinely don't see the difference between the two sentences Dan, it's not an attempt to be awkward. I'm sure if you fed them into a mechanical parser/semantic analyzer they'd reduce to the same predicate logic. Let's start by agreeing that "Americans" and "American people" are equivalent, at least when discussing statistical facts about populations. Then the two sentences can be rewritten as: "the homicide rate amongst the American people is much higher than amongst the Swiss" and "American people are more homicidal than the swiss" or taking out the nouns: "the X rate amongst Y is much higher than amongst the Z" vs "Y is more X than Z" which I am 100% sure, if put to people in a neutral poll, would be considered the same. But I'm also mystified as to the wider goal. TheDong admits the two constructions are similar, yet his reaction is extreme - one is fine and the other triggers calls for banning people completely, labels of "hateful and divisive" and so on. That kind of unpredictable and over the top behaviour triggered by almost non-existent differences in phrasing is negative to Hacker News, and clearly violates the various guidelines about reading what people say in good faith, let alone the one about reacting to the strongest possible interpretation! Given that TheDong knows how similar they are, one must wonder what the purpose of treating them so differently is.