4 ms·

Racists 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 r

Racists 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 ago
  Well, 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.
- calderknight 3y ago
  I might have been a bit uncharitable in my interpretation of your comment. I think your view is this: 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.
  - tomlockwood 3y ago
    > 2. You can't have white women without white men. 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.
    - calderknight 3y ago
      I wasn't talking about tearing families apart. I was talking about the fact of biology that white females can only come into being if there are white men to father them. In any case, I simplified my comment into just one point.
      - tomlockwood 3y ago
        Actually white females can come into being if the definition of white is expanded. Initial conceptions of whiteness didn't include Scottish and Irish people, and recently Richard Spencer said he thinks 80% of Italians are white. This would have been an unthinkable statement even in the 1970s. 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.

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 ago
Well, 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.
calderknight 3y ago
I might have been a bit uncharitable in my interpretation of your comment. I think your view is this: 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.
- tomlockwood 3y ago
  > 2. You can't have white women without white men. 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.
  - calderknight 3y ago
    I wasn't talking about tearing families apart. I was talking about the fact of biology that white females can only come into being if there are white men to father them. In any case, I simplified my comment into just one point.
    - tomlockwood 3y ago
      Actually white females can come into being if the definition of white is expanded. Initial conceptions of whiteness didn't include Scottish and Irish people, and recently Richard Spencer said he thinks 80% of Italians are white. This would have been an unthinkable statement even in the 1970s. 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.