beardown @ beardown @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

380

Joined

2 yr. ago

You're saying that the FBI crime statistics demonstrating that more crimes per capita are committed by black Americans than any other race are fabricated?

If so, then shouldn't we similarly disbelieve all similar demographic data?

If not, then shouldn't we segregate black Americans away from the rest of us?

The point is that you are making the arguments of a white supremacist and a segregationist

Empirical data, and the experiences of Whites everyday, makes the caution reasonable. It is not bigotry for Whites to be cautious around Blacks, especially strange Blacks but even with Blacks that Whites know (80% of rapes are perpetuated by someone the victim knows). Trust is earned and the default should always be caution, especially when the person you’re dealing with holds any sort of power over you (physical strength, etc.).

Literally you rn

When there’s a preponderance of empirical evidence that a certain group of people poses a larger risk to another group of people, it validates the decision to approach them with caution.

Literally Nazi rationale for 1930s Germany. Or White Americans justification for segregation. Or Israeli justification for genocide against Palestinians

People are people. Immutable traits have no influence on how anyone should ever be treated

Being wary of strange people is one thing. Being wary of strange people who only have (insert immutable trait) is bigotry and is always wrong.

This is kindergarten level shit

It isn't obtuse to state with moral clarity that it is always wrong to treat someone differently on the basis of their sex

You're saying that you hate men, but you don't hate men who are black are Muslim? Why is that?

You think that your hypothetical men who are so evil are somehow not Muslim or black? Why?

You can use FBI crime statistics to make "empirical" arguments about black Americans. Yet I think we both recognize that would be fallacious

What do FBI crime stats say about Black Americans?

Statistics are easily misconstrued, and often are

there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are more less trustworthy than non-POC.

That is true, but is not a universally held belief. Many strongly feel that black people are inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Others feel the same about Muslims. Or Chinese. Or Russians. Or Jewish people. Or Gypsies.

People who feel that way about those groups are called bigots. You feel that way about men which means you are also a bigot. Not a difficult analysis.

You're laying a basis for the "reasonable" use of sex segregation in society and for a bifurcated social grouping of men and women. Which is sexism.

Also your arguments about biological strength differences were used as a justification for racial segregation in the United States and in Apartheid South Africa as a basis for keeping the "inherently brutish and rapacious African" away from the more "civilized" whites, mainly white delicate women. You're doing the same thing here. You're a bigot, and the rationalizations you're using are of the same type that bigots always employ

Maybe you should read a history book. Or just stop othering people and enabling prejudice. It's inherently immoral, illiberal, and counter to Western enlightenment thought.

Treating someone negatively or positively on the basis of their sex is sexism.

If your point is that men are only trustworthy if they're "one of the good ones" then you're a bigot. Sounds exactly like a Fox News addicted boomer after watching a segment on "inner city" crime.

Immutable traits are never a valid basis for discriminatory actions or beliefs. You judge individuals based on who they are, not on how they were born. To do otherwise is bigotry and prejudice

?

Dehumanizing any group based on immutable traits is a path to genocide, yes. Which is why it needs to be opposed at its earliest stage in all manifestations. This is simple 3rd grade holocaust history stuff. Did you not go to school?

How should lgbt people view Muslims?

I know plenty of people who make this same argument for why whites can't trust blacks. Those people are called racists. People who make the argument you're making are called sexists.

Being a tiger is an immutable trait. Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't discriminate when I decide whether to approach it?

So now you're dehumanizing and othering men by comparing them to wild animals. Which is another example of bigotry, and the first step towards such things as crimes against humanity and genocide. I remember hearing a lot recently about how all Palestinians are animals. And reading about how Germans in the 30s claimed that all jews were inhuman. And if not all then certainly most, which is why we need to round them up just to be sure

I'm really not interested in FBI crime stats unless you're going to be honest with them and use them to make similar points about race. If you're not willing to argue that the stats show that whites and blacks cannot live together, or at least that whites cannot trust blacks (which are clearly ludicrous and bigoted statements) then you shouldn't be using sex to make that same argument. We shouldn't refuse to make business dealings with Jews just because they're Jewish, we shouldn't refuse to hire black people as cops just because they're black, we shouldn't refuse to hire Muslims in LGBT organizations, and we similarly shouldn't distrust men just because they're men. And honestly if you think we should do any of those things then not only are you a bigot, but you also don't know women. Because I know for a fact that my wife, her friends, colleagues, and family members highly resent this sort of pseudo feminist hate speech that people like you peddle supposedly on their behalf. Then again, most of them are educated and have functioning brains, which may be why they are able to discern the difference between reality and bigotry, and the distinction between groups based on immutable traits and individuals.

I don't think you understand what a trait vs an immutable trait is. Being a driver or a gun owner is not an immutable trait. So those aren't applicable to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bigotry based on immutable traits, such as sex or race. Which is unlawful under certain circumstances and is always highly illiberal

A woman could also have done that to your MiL, especially if she had a knife or gun. Which should be presumed as we are in the United States. Any stranger behaving in such a manner should raise red flags, including if that stranger is a woman. My point is not that stranger danger isn't a reasonable concept under certain circumstances, it's that you're a bigot if you only apply that concept to certain sexes or races. White women, for example, should raise just as many red flags and protective measures as black men do if we are talking about strangers acting strangely. In fact, you're a mark and a bigot if you think a would be assailant is actually a friend just because they're a white lady

Suspicious behavior should always raise your suspicions. Race and sex don't play any part in that analysis

You're making the same fallacious argument that racists make about why whites need to avoid blacks. Or why Christians need to avoid dealings with Jews. You're a bigot whether you realize it or not.