3 ms·
You 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 demog
by Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
You 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.)
- tomlockwood 3y ago> white racists would say that white men perfected agriculture, the wheel, philosophy ect. Not true, some racists consider Greeks to be "white" or "european" or "western". > Based on the point I made above, they might say that men are excused because they are continualy useful, Actually, no. For a long time the "white-est" people in the world were barbarians from the north with immodest women and sickly-pale skin. There's also the so-called "dark ages" when Islamic science was doing fine and Europe was languishing. Arabic numerals, anyone?