view the rest of the comments
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
We aren’t talking belief here. What I am saying is based off of empirical evidence.
Why are you being so unapologetically obtuse?
You can use FBI crime statistics to make "empirical" arguments about black Americans. Yet I think we both recognize that would be fallacious
I’m gonna ask you again, why are you being unapologetically obtuse?
If you want to challenge the data I’m citing, do it rather than refusing to engage in good faith.
It isn't obtuse to state with moral clarity that it is always wrong to treat someone differently on the basis of their sex
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.
You’re arguing that women should just ignore the reality that they are likely to be assaulted (remember, 81%) and that the people most likely to assault them are men. It is reasonable and right for women to exercise caution and clarity when engaging with men for that reason. This isn’t hard, it requires a person to be willfully ignorant to disagree with it. Get your feelings out of this matter and look at the reality we live in.
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
In every case you cite there was not a preponderance of empirical data. It was fabricated.
Are you arguing that the data I’m citing is fabricated?
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
Yes. I am. But not the way you’re thinking. The data is unreliable for the following, well documented, reasons:
It doesn’t account for socioeconomic disparities, which is a far greater indicator and predictor of crime than race.
It doesn’t acknowledge systemic bias and racism in policing practices, again well documented.
It doesn’t take into account disparities in reporting and data collection.
Ultimately the fbi statistics are in fact questionable for a multitude of reasons, the least of which being that they are direct statistics that don’t take into account underlying causes.
The statistics regarding women and sexual assault are quite straight forward with far fewer underlying questions. The reality is, in fact, that sexual assault is known to be quite under reported and that the numbers we have are known to be understating the issue.
Right and all of these clearly disadvantage black Americans, and specifically black men, for obviously racist reasons.
Why do these not also disfavor men generally for equally bigoted reasons? Are there not fallacious biases regarding the innate criminality of men just as there are fallacious biases regarding the innate criminality of black people?
I’m so done with your bad faith arguments. Jfc.
You’re intentionally obtuse, you ignore the points I’m making, making up fallacious and straw man arguments, ignoring empirical data, and failing to make a single argument with any sort of data to support it. Instead you engage in whataboutism as if it is some gotcha moment that should win me over and start convincing women to stop being cautious around men because if they don’t they’re bigots, when you have made clear time and again that you don’t even understand what bigotry is. Get your shit together and make a valid argument or shut up. Until you do, I’m out.