7 ms·
One of the most interesting things to me is the racists that insist that we should examine all demographic factors when trying to identify who the criminals are
by tomlockwood 3y ago
One of the most interesting things to me is the racists that insist that we should examine all demographic factors 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. And yet, there are no calls from them for a restriction on male immigration.
- sinoue 3y agoIf you have a criminal record your chances of a legal immigration is drastically reduced.
- nicenewtemp84 3y agoThe guy that shot Kate in SF had been deported 6 times. The guy that shot his neighbors in Texas recently had been deported 4 times. Getting into the US, and living in the US, with whatever history of violence you have is apparently very easy.
- orangepurple 3y agoThere are multiple places along the US Mexican border that are both easy to cross and don't have any sort of fence. Usually the large fence just stops. If you cross in those locations you are immediately asked to wait in line for a bus to be taken to a detention center where you are given an I-94 and an NGO funds your bus ride to New Jersey and New York where you will work under the table for cheap and skip your immigration court hearing. If you DON'T want to get caught, it is harder, since the border patrol knows where the crossing areas are and the terrain is more hostile although less patrolled.
- nicenewtemp84 3y agoSomeone getting deported 6 times probably doesn't go through those easy points you mentioned. I imagine if youve been physically deported by the government, if they find you again at a point like that, you get sent back? Yet if someone can come back in 6 times, I have to assume even the harder routes aren't THAT hard.
- inferiorhuman 3y agoThe guy that shot Kate in SF Yeah maybe the park ranger shouldn't have left his weapon around for strangers to play with it. Create less enticement for crime and you'll see less crime.
- nicenewtemp84 3y agoI don't think leaving a weapon somewhere is an enticement to crime. If I saw a weapon loose somewhere, I would report it to my local police. If I was an illegal, I would ignore it. If I was a shady illegal, I might take the gun and try to sell it or keep it for personal protection. You know what I wouldn't do? Go pointing it anywhere around a group of people.
- inferiorhuman 3y agoThe crime was playing with a gun that accidentally went off thus leaving a weapon laying around was absolutely enticement.
- nicenewtemp84 3y agoPlaying with a gun around a crowd of people.. that you brought with you to a crowd of people... 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.
- bombcar 3y agoI’ve seen that (maybe sarcastically) proposed in places - unlimited immigration of fertile women only. Don’t put it past them.
- selcuka 3y agoThat's actually happened at least once in history [1]: > 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_women_in_Australia
- hablog 3y agoThis would have some extremely interesting population-level genetic consequences if it was accompanied by some sort of social change to allow polygyny. In particular, it would reduce the correlation that exists across all adaptive traits due to assortative monogamous mating patterns. Right now, all "desirable" traits like health/intelligence/strength/etc are strongly correlated, but when you reduce the strength of assortative effects, the correlation weakens significantly.
- aaronblohowiak 3y ago> Right now, all "desirable" traits like health/intelligence/strength/etc are strongly correlated Oh?
- hablog 3y agoYeah, for an illustrative example of assortative mating effects, consider the stereotype of the rich nerd with the hot wife. Kids are smart and attractive. This plays out at every pareto level in the sexual marketplace. 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).
- anoxor 3y ago[flagged]
- whitemary 3y agoIt's not racism and calling it that does a disservice to the issues of actual racism. Also, nobody says that. Police will always use correlation to predict criminality. You will never change that, but we can change the reason for the statistical correlation: poverty. Male immigration is too profitable, so nobody with a voice would want to curb it.
- Bran_son 3y ago> we can change the reason for the statistical correlation: poverty. 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-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/ https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/16/racial-differe... , table 6
- SonOfKyuss 3y agoCan you correct for slavery and 400 years of oppression though?
- alienicecream 3y agoWhat exactly is the argument? That rich blacks commit murder at a higher rate than poor whites directly contradicts the argument that it is all about poverty. So the usual argument that slavery led to poverty and poverty leads to crime is wrong. What's left? That these people are committing murder to avenge the slavery of their ancestors, or that murder was baked into their culture by slavery?
- orangepurple 3y agoYet the truly poor are subsidized with food stamps and subsidized housing. Poor people in West Virginia (a large amount) generally don't kill each other. What am I missing?
- lotsofpulp 3y agoIs this true? I assume detectives always start with men as suspects in physical crimes unless the evidence indicates otherwise.
- tomlockwood 3y agoIt's universally true. There's no nation where it isn't true.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoThis claim? >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.
- willcipriano 3y agoWhat's interesting to me is the opposite. Why aren't we screaming about the systemic oppression that must be forcing men to act violently?
- tomlockwood 3y ago> must be Why do you think this?
- Georgelemental 3y agoI suspect the sarcasm went over your head.
- ggm 3y agoIt's an analogue of rational market theory: no asocial choice can be rationalised as a good long-term plan so there must be externalities which are causative. 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.
- artificialLimbs 3y agoMajority of criminals are from abusive or fatherless homes. That's the externality.
- olalonde 3y agoI believe it was sarcasm. 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"). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa
- roughly 3y agoThis is actually a thread in feminist theory, which is ignored more broadly for reasons I’m sure you can imagine.
- Bran_son 3y ago> And yet, there are no calls from them for a restriction on male immigration. 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.
- selcuka 3y ago> 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?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rowanG077 3y agoYou know what they say. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would expect that if that were the case we would have long noticed certain paternal lineages having all the aggression.
- Bran_son 3y agoThen they will reveal the real reason they oppose immigration: to reduce competition of their genetic in-group with other groups.
- ryan93 3y agoI think you will find that racists will be okay with basically any immigration restriction. Its like people arguing back with anti affirmative action people that legacy admissions are unfair. Well they would happily give up a benefit they will never receive to get what they want!
- BobTheDestroyer 3y agoNow I'm curious if men are disproportionately more violent than women also due to the much-memed "socioeconomic factors"? 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.
- calderknight 3y agoRacists shy away from the fact that men are more likely to commit murder than women? No, I assure you, roughly every racist on Earth would find any other view ridiculous. But it is very easy to find non-racists who take the equally absurd position of denying that African Americans are more likely to commit murder than White Americans 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.
- tomlockwood 3y ago> You will be hard-pressed to find a racist that denies that men are more likely to commit murder than women. 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.
- benatkin 3y ago"Comparisons are odious." This comparison between racism and sexism doesn't work very well. Sometimes they're very analogous, sometimes they aren't.
- bilbo0s 3y agoWell, you're right if it makes you feel better. Clearly males are more dangerous than females and restricting male immigration makes some sense. I could see an argument that immigration should be female only. 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.
- tomlockwood 3y ago> Well, you're right if it makes you feel better. Cheers.
- neurobama 3y agoThis is a pointless observation since the male/female difference is the approximately equal for all races. In contrast, black women in the US commit more murders per capita than do white men: 5.8 versus 3.5 per 100k, as of 2021 per the FBI/Department of Justice. Black women are the only female group with this distinction compared to the male ethnic majority in the US, and all other countries of which I am aware.
- tomlockwood 3y agoIt's not a pointless observation. If we restricted immigration to women only, violence perpetrated by immigrants would drop somewhere north of 90%.
- jankyxenon 3y agoHow does the value of reduced immigrant crime stack up against the cost of skewing the sex balance in a country?
- selcuka 3y agoIt's a statistical thought experiment, nobody (who is sane) is claiming that it would be a good thing.
- jankyxenon 3y agoCheck OP I’m responding too. His question is why racists don’t call for a male immigration ban - not a statistical thought experiment.
- selcuka 3y agoI believe they are simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the racist rant. Racists claim that the reason they are against immigration from certain countries because of the increase in crime rate they would allegedly bring.
- enkid 3y agoI mean, statistically illegal immigrants in the US are less likely to commit violent crime. [0] Truthfully, that audience probably isn't too concerned with statistics. [0]https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
- hablog 3y agoI mean, yeah, this is kind of obvious if you think about it. The majority of violent crime in the US is committed by black people, so inherently a marginal increase in any other ethnic group (including hispanic) would (on expectation) lead to a decrease in per-capita violent crime, unless illegal immigrants were more violent than legal immigrants (which we have no evidence of).
- hablog 3y agoWhen exactly do racists/bayesians shy away from this fact?
- tomlockwood 3y agoWhenever they focus on race as a useful predictor for criminality. It's dwarfed immensely by the sex difference.
- hablog 3y agoEvery single bayesianism advocate is aware of this. It's so obvious that it's implicit - there's simply no need to state "95% of crime is committed by men"; this is completely uncontroversial and does not need to be discussed. The controversial part is applying bayesianism to other, more politically sensitive predictors.
- pdonis 3y agoThe proper Bayesian response would be to look for factors that are better predictors, since both "being male" and any race are very weak predictors (see my other comment upthread).
- hablog 3y ago> The proper Bayesian response... since both "being male" and any race are very weak predictors (see my other comment upthread). 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.
- pdonis 3y ago> Look up "odds ratios" 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.
- 13of40 3y agoOne issue with that is that people tend to come in pairs. What good is it to the couple if the woman can immigrate but the man can't?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nayuki 3y agoImmigration? I'm pretty sure there are enough problems with locally born men who are criminals. Immigration is but a drop in the bucket when it comes to problems.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cortesoft 3y agoWhat is always tricky about any attempt to use statistical prediction on something rare like criminality is that you have two things that are both true: the vast majority of crimes are committed by men, AND the vast majority of men are not criminals. 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.
- tomlockwood 3y agoExcellent point, I hope we can apply this to all demographic factors. 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.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- olalonde 3y agoYou also don't hear people claiming that this disparity is due to sexism.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago> hey shy away from the pure fact that violent crime is almost exclusively perpetuated by men [citation required]
- tomlockwood 3y agohttps://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_66_arrests_suburban_areas_by_sex_2011.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
- slowhand09 3y ago[flagged]
- msla 3y ago[flagged]
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoTERFs have nothing to do with this at all.
- msla 3y agoYou'd certainly hope they wouldn't be on HN, wouldn't you?
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoEh. I certainly don't want bigots on HN. But TERF has become a slur to silence anyone that says anything that people can take offense to in the context of trans issues, and isn't always deserved or accurate.
- hnterv 3y ago[flagged]
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y agoYou seem to be makimg several claims here, some more related to what I think is your main point than others: 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.
- tomlockwood 3y agoI mean that's great and all but the racist point on the invention of medicine is not only unverifiable, it also leads immediately to the observation that white men didn't invent agriculture, the wheel, philosophy, writing. If men can be excused because they did great things, then why not other categories of people?
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago"Invention of medicine" was just shorthand for "men contributed the most to medecine and invented modern medicine/biology." >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.)
- s9w 3y ago[dead]
- smith002 3y ago[flagged]