4 ms·

Just what are you trying to find out with this question?

deadbytes 6y ago
The data that you posted shows two extremely clear trends, gun violence in Philly is commited overwhelmingly by men, and overwhelmingly by black people. Why men? Well I think its pretty obvious. Men are genetically more aggressive, and genetically much more prone to commit violent acts. Does saying this mean I am sexist and hate men? No, it's just an obvious observation from the data. An observation does not imply anything more. Ok, so why black people? This is where people's brains start freezing up from social conditioning. Nobody will let themselves analyse this in a logical manner, even though the data shows the exact same pattern and rationally the same factors should apply. You will only ever get name calling, knee-jerk responses and purely emotional, speculative arguments here. I encourage you to look at the data you yourself have posted and to draw your own conclusions.
- ddevault 6y ago
  A skillful evasion of the question. >I encourage you to look at the data you yourself have posted and to draw your own conclusions. This is quite irresponsible. You can't just leave it at "black men shoot more people than other demographics" and let the reader "draw their own conclusions", because on its own it seems very much like the conclusions you want the reader to draw are quite racist. On the face of it your comments look very much like other subversive racist comments that are often seen in less moderated forums than HN. You want people to draw conclusions from incomplete data which only considers the subject's race. They'll draw on those conclusions to, say, vote. If you don't want to engender a racist perception, then you need to dig deeper than race before you state your arguments. How does it correlate with income? Job status? What are the schools like in these areas? How does it compare to other populations? America has an institutionalized racism problem, which creates an environment from which these problems arise in predominantely nonwhite areas. Don't mix up cause and effect. Pointing out the demographics in this dataset, then complaining that no one wants to have that discussion due to some perceived social taboo, is a bad faith, racist argument.
  - deadbytes 6y ago
    >You will only ever get name calling, knee-jerk responses and purely emotional, speculative arguments here Thank you for so perfectly proving my point
    - ddevault 6y ago
      If your arguments always get called racist, maybe that's a cause for introspection, my friend.
      - deadbytes 6y ago
        If your definition of racist is "someone who thinks there may be genetic differences between races" then do you apply this same logic consistently to sexism too? Am I sexist for suggesting that there are some genetic differences between men and women, that may lead to differences in behaviour? Is articulating this opinion a "bad faith, sexist argument"? Am I trying to draw the reader into making conclusions that are "quite sexist"? You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Not once have I said this. I can observe that men commit more crime that women, this doesn't make me hate men. Similarly I can observe that adults commit more crime than children, this doesn't make me hate adults. The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling.
        ddevault 6y ago
        >The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling. I agree. But you're not examining these "truths" critically, you're just making provacative insinuations and dropping them on the floor. >You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Racism is not the same thing as "hating a group". It's an entire class of behaviors. What you've done is make some suggestive mentions about race with no critical examination of them, hoping that the reader will draw some conclusion from your woefully incomplete analysis. When the only thing you have looked at is race, not doing any due diligence beyond, and you're making a connection with violent behavior, then your argument is pretty racist. Your comments in this thread reads like a play-by-play of any bigoted argumentation which we've seen anywhere in past. The tropes and tone of your comments matches common bigoted patterns very closely. If you don't want to be associated with that, then you should re-evaluate the way you present your arguments.

The data that you posted shows two extremely clear trends, gun violence in Philly is commited overwhelmingly by men, and overwhelmingly by black people. Why men? Well I think its pretty obvious. Men are genetically more aggressive, and genetically much more prone to commit violent acts. Does saying this mean I am sexist and hate men? No, it's just an obvious observation from the data. An observation does not imply anything more. Ok, so why black people? This is where people's brains start freezing up from social conditioning. Nobody will let themselves analyse this in a logical manner, even though the data shows the exact same pattern and rationally the same factors should apply. You will only ever get name calling, knee-jerk responses and purely emotional, speculative arguments here. I encourage you to look at the data you yourself have posted and to draw your own conclusions.

ddevault 6y ago
A skillful evasion of the question. >I encourage you to look at the data you yourself have posted and to draw your own conclusions. This is quite irresponsible. You can't just leave it at "black men shoot more people than other demographics" and let the reader "draw their own conclusions", because on its own it seems very much like the conclusions you want the reader to draw are quite racist. On the face of it your comments look very much like other subversive racist comments that are often seen in less moderated forums than HN. You want people to draw conclusions from incomplete data which only considers the subject's race. They'll draw on those conclusions to, say, vote. If you don't want to engender a racist perception, then you need to dig deeper than race before you state your arguments. How does it correlate with income? Job status? What are the schools like in these areas? How does it compare to other populations? America has an institutionalized racism problem, which creates an environment from which these problems arise in predominantely nonwhite areas. Don't mix up cause and effect. Pointing out the demographics in this dataset, then complaining that no one wants to have that discussion due to some perceived social taboo, is a bad faith, racist argument.
- deadbytes 6y ago
  >You will only ever get name calling, knee-jerk responses and purely emotional, speculative arguments here Thank you for so perfectly proving my point
  - ddevault 6y ago
    If your arguments always get called racist, maybe that's a cause for introspection, my friend.
    - deadbytes 6y ago
      If your definition of racist is "someone who thinks there may be genetic differences between races" then do you apply this same logic consistently to sexism too? Am I sexist for suggesting that there are some genetic differences between men and women, that may lead to differences in behaviour? Is articulating this opinion a "bad faith, sexist argument"? Am I trying to draw the reader into making conclusions that are "quite sexist"? You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Not once have I said this. I can observe that men commit more crime that women, this doesn't make me hate men. Similarly I can observe that adults commit more crime than children, this doesn't make me hate adults. The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling.
      - ddevault 6y ago
        >The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling. I agree. But you're not examining these "truths" critically, you're just making provacative insinuations and dropping them on the floor. >You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Racism is not the same thing as "hating a group". It's an entire class of behaviors. What you've done is make some suggestive mentions about race with no critical examination of them, hoping that the reader will draw some conclusion from your woefully incomplete analysis. When the only thing you have looked at is race, not doing any due diligence beyond, and you're making a connection with violent behavior, then your argument is pretty racist. Your comments in this thread reads like a play-by-play of any bigoted argumentation which we've seen anywhere in past. The tropes and tone of your comments matches common bigoted patterns very closely. If you don't want to be associated with that, then you should re-evaluate the way you present your arguments.