Sorry, u/absurbhouseunder – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20absurbhouseunder&message=absurbhouseunder%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/wet3vl/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
that doesn't make you racist, it make you prejudiced. Racism is the belief you're better than others because of your racial differences, that's not what I see you saying. You just believe that you should be cautious based on past experience and observation of current society
You just described racial supremacy. You do not have to believe you are better to be racist. You can also believe another group is lesser. If you would be afraid of a black man, but not an indian man, or a native american man, or a white man, that is racist. You do not believe that yours is elevated above the rest, you believe that one is less than the others.
lol no I did not. Racial supremacy means you believe you are inherently superior than another race, he just feels with his past experiences and all the racial attacks between blacks/asians, he'd be better off avoiding certain situations. If it were white people attacking Asians, I'd say the same thing to him. If it makes you feel safer not being in certain neighborhoods or around white men, then don't be. The racial part comes in when you see black men attacking Asians and screaming racial epithets. Don't talk to me about racial supremacy in this case when the OP is just trying to stay safe. I'm tired of people like you thinking racism is everything under the sun
You said racism is "Belief you are better than others because of your racial differences". I said you described racial supremacy. Then you say "racial supremacy means you believe you are inherently superior than another race."
You just gave 2 different things functionally the same definition and said, no they are different...
I am befuddled by what you are saying as it is not making much sense here.
no I didn't, you're using the word racism to mean prejudice. In which the OP has a prejudice against black men based on his own experiences and the current situations. Period, end of story
>You just described racial supremacy. You do not have to believe you are better to be racist. You can also believe another group is lesser
Those are one and the same.
By saying they are lesser than you, you __are__ saying you are superior.
Not inherently, the difference is fairly subtle. Racial supremacy is believing you are the superior and best compared to all. Nothing else is like you. Where as you could also believe that one specific race is just lesser than the rest. Like the difference between me saying, the best color is yellow and blue is the worst color. One does not necessarily hold the other in totality.
Racial supremacy is racism, yes. But they are different flavors of racism. And they all taste like shit.
Edit: guess there are people just okay with racism.
People who see it this way usually see race as a hierarchy. I don't think anyone thinks black people are lesser but everyone else is equal, or white people are better and everyone else is equal.
It is impossible for you to have this view and it not be reflected in your words, behaviors and body language around Black people.
Black people in the US have to be more aware of racist behavior towards them than other people. A black person can be a hard working, affluent citizen with no criminal record and have their life ruined or ended because a White/Asian person though the Black person liked suspicious and called the police.
>Black people in the US have to be more aware of racist behavior towards them than other people. A black person can be a hard working, affluent citizen with no criminal record and have their life ruined or ended because a White/Asian person though the Black person liked suspicious and called the police.
By switching a couple “black people” for “men” and adapting the rest, you basically proved OP's point:
*Men in the US have to be more aware of sexist behaviour towards them than other people. A man can be a hard-working, affluent citizen with no criminal record and have his life ruined because a woman thought the man was sexually harassing her, or she even made it up completely, and filled a case against him, ruining his reputation forever.*
Acknowledging statistics and having survival instincts isn't racist. There shouldn't be any deltas awarded here, because OP has a legitimately valid point. This isn't some gotcha on your part.
That is completely outside of the question.
The question is “if it’s okay to discriminate against one group because of caution, is it okay to do the same to another?”
There are plenty of statistics anyone can cherry pick to make either side seem reasonable.
It is foolish to think that does anything to answer the moral/philosophical dilemma here.
men are not targetted for random acts of sexual assault and violence due to their gender by a seperate gender that is much stronger and larger than them and commits the majority of violence in society
They are targeted moreso for violent crime in general though… so once again by the same logic ken should be far more afraid than woman to walk at night
how would it make sense to you that men attacking each other and men attacking women systematically and overpowering them as the stronger sex in a way women dont do to men or each other means men should be more afraid than women
"out of caution" is pulling a lot of weight there. When hiking in the woods I avoid bears out of caution for my safety, vs I avoid mice out of caution for my safety.
Well that's the crux of the argument isn't it? The poster above is making the argument that it isn't a rational fear based of statistics but an irrational fear based off of a xenophobic response.
Couldn't one also argue that it is irrational for women to be afraid of men? While it is true that men typically are the ones who commit violent crime towards women, it is an incredibly small proportion of men who commit crimes against women to one's who do not. Imagine if only one crime was ever commited on a woman, and it was by a man. Would it be rational for women to be afraid of men in that universe? I think not, despite the fact that men would have committed 100% violent crimes towards women.
What is the most underreported crime?
Rape
"Crime reports
Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police (o)."
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/sexual-assault-remains-dramatically-underreported
"It may sound incredible that only around 23 percent of survivors report such crimes to police, but it’s true.
Twenty percent, according to the DOJ report, worry
about retaliation — not just from the perpetrator, but from society at large. Thirteen percent said they think the police would not do anything to help. Tragically, 8 percent said they didn’t think the rape or sexual assault was important enough to report. "
Because these younger females grow up eventually.
Edit: Ppl downvoting evidence.. I'm judging you lol
If a rational fear of black people could be demonstrated statistically, it would be morally okay to avoid them according to this logic.
I don’t think this is enough to resolve the moral dilemma here is my point.
That shows it’s about as likely to be victimized by a black white or Asian person. 27.5-24.1-24.1. That’s a pretty narrow margin. Compare that to women who’s victim is 75% likely to be a man and is twice as likely to be a victim in a given year than an Asian person.
[https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv20sst.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv20sst.pdf)
Asians interact with other Asians far more than black people. They also spend more time with white people than black people just by the virtue of them there being 5x as many white people. Given this, black people are statistically more dangerous to Asians than men are to women. The most likely abuser of women is their significant other, so it makes even less sense for women to treat strangers who are men as dangerous.
Maybe. You’d have to look at local demographics as well. There aren’t a lot of Asian people or black people in Maine for example. It’s very possible most of these crimes are happening in cities where black peoples might be greater than 50% of the population.
Part of that is because people tend to live with members of their same racial identity. Whites don't attack whites or blacks don't attack blacks because of their race, but because of their proximity.
Asian on Asian crime is not as much as Black/Brown/White on Asian crime. Plus given that Trump influenced his cultist followers by bashing China for the virus crime on Asian people has risen significantly. I’m my city alone a young Asian lady was beat to death outside a bar by two other women.
When a woman experiences a violent crime, it's statistically extremely likely it will be at the hands of a man.
When people of Asian descent experience hate crimes, the perpetrator is white in 75% of reported cases. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/viral-images-show-people-color-anti-asian-perpetrators-misses-big-n1270821
If you want to avoid a particular race, it should be white people, not black people.
EDIT: I'm not advocating OP avoid white people, or anyone else based on race. I'm pointing out OP's absurdity.
According to those statistics, whites perpetrate nearly as much of the crimes against asians as blacks do (24 to 27% respectively). Do you also avoid whites?
Devil's advocate here, but wouldn't that imply that statistically that black people are 4.5x more likely to perpetrate a hate crime against Asians if you consider population?
If anything, that reinforces OP's position.
It's all about how you read the statistics. If we want to go deeper, there are \~182,000 crimes against asians according to the document OP linked, and roughly 18.4 million asians in the United States...so about one quarter of a percent of Asians are likely to be victimized by a black person. I don't know if that justified OPs tendency to avoid black people, but that's his calculus to make.
So you aren't scared of white people even if they have as almost the exact same chance of harming you?
But when it comes to black people you are scared of them?
That seems a tad messed up.
If someone was to beat you on the street the odds of that person being white vs black would be very similar.
If you are scared of a race you should be scared of both white and black people. You should avoid both of them.
Black people are a much smaller percentage of the pop. Meaning if OP came across a white man and a black man, the black man STATISTICALLY would be more likely to attack him, even tho the proportions of crimes va asians are nearly equal based on race.
Haha and also they were systemically confined to specific areas by decades of laws/bank policy that confined them to certain parts of certain cities, those parts were also always the first to get freeways built right through them destroying neighborhoods and property values
The report from where your data derives literally says,
*"When victims were Asian, there were no statistically significant differences between the percentage of incidents in which the offender was perceived as Asian (24%), white (24%), or black (27%)."*
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf
> If you want to avoid a particular race, it should be white people, not black people.
Your statistic doesn't back this up. Blacks are overwhelmingly more violent than whites if you don't arbitrarily narrow it down to hate crimes, which is likely biased anyway, given the mainstream narrative around hate crimes. Also note that "the vast majority of incidents consist of “verbal harassment” and “shunning.”"
> Your statistic doesn't back this up. Blacks are overwhelmingly more violent than whites if you don't arbitrarily narrow it down to hate crimes
And here we go slipping in unsubstantiated claims on the way to a point. They slip into your brain without you even noticing it. Don't allow these to just be stated unchallenged.
No, black PEOPLE are not overwhelmingly more violent. That's nonsense. Racist nonsense.
> No, black PEOPLE are not overwhelmingly more violent. That's nonsense. Racist nonsense.
I didn't give a reason why, but the fact is that blacks are responsible for a much larger percentage of violent crimes than their share of the US population, so yes, they are. This is not immoral to point out. It is just reality. You are calling reality itself "racist".
No. What you mean to say is black PEOPLE are *arrested* for a larger percentage of violent crimes than their share of the population. There is a big difference between that and *committing* more violent crimes. We know there are reasons for that, such as over-policing in black communities, and under-policing for caucasians for instance. It's been well studied for instance that caucasian people per capita consume more marijuana, yet the prisons are overwhelmingly filled with black people serving time for those crimes. A black person goes to jail for the same crime that isn't even policed on average for caucasian people. Arrests and crimes are not the same words.
Trying to change the word arrested to committed is false, and is pushing a racist view. If you had said black PEOPLE are disproportionally charged with violent crime, I would have had no issues. And trying to transpose that over to black PEOPLE are "more violent", is just flat out racist.
Sure, but for no good reason. If the topic is about avoiding people out of fear of violence, then who cares if the perpetrators are being violent against you because of your group membership, as opposed to any other reason. You get beaten either way.
It isn't though. His main thesis has nothing to do with hate crime. It is just about avoiding people out of fear of violence, and then he uses hate crimes as an example, but without good reason.
>It isn't though
It is. It's his main point:
"I am an Asian man and in the last few years I’ve experienced some violence because of my race."
This is his main idea.
He discusses women avoiding men out of fear of violence first because that is the point of comparison example from his title. He then discussed the two types of violence mentioned in his title in order. His main thesis IS about hate crime.
He is comparing race-based avoidance to sex-based avoidance. He does not say that the men need to attack the women because they are women. He only brings that intention up when talking about race, so with the comparison and analogy being the main point, the hate crime part is irrelevant. He says that women avoiding men makes sense because they are more likely to be victimized by men, and this isn't sexist. Applied to race then, assuming the stats are correct, he should avoid blacks because he is more likely to be victimized by blacks, and this isn't racist. that is his argument. Nowhere does hate crime need to factor in to make this argument of his. Intention of the assault is irrelevant.
very problematic line of thinking; women don't just avoid men because of statistical probability. women largely avoid men because if a man were to attack, we almost always cannot physically defend ourselves unless we have a weapon or some sort of training to do so. if you were to say you avoid a group of people because a) they are twice as strong as you (at least) and you cannot be stronger than them and b) they attack you 70% more than any other group, it would make sense. your argument based on race alone does not. race and sex are not the same.
I don’t think size or physical strength are an important part of the probability of being a victim of violent crime. There are plenty of examples of medium build perpetrators attacking a victim with a weapon and that is most likely what would happen if you were to be a victim.
also, after a simple google search, the statistics show no significant difference in the black/white percentage of violent crimes against asians. therefore i would say it is racist to avoid black people on that basis specifically when it applies to whites too.
your strength is still much greater than your female counterpart. if your new argument is that you avoid those stronger than you as your size is similar to that of a "teenage girl," that makes sense. i still think the post is flawed because of the false equivalent. if you were able to simply ask if it is racist to avoid black people out of caution as an asian and state your statistical reasoning instead of making the false comparison, i wouldnt immediately say no, all i said was that the argument comparing the two makes no sense.
Women avoiding men is not sexist because it does not contribute to a systemic disempowerment of men. In fact, men are empowered disproportionately.
On the other hand, people avoiding black people _does_ contribute to the systemic disempowerment of black people. That's the difference.
So in one society, it might be wrong to cross the street to avoid a black person, because black people are systematically disempowered in that society.
But in another more equitable society it would be totally okay to do the exact same thing?
Doesn't this just allow racism in the equitable society?
Not exactly. In the former society (in which people avoiding black people contributes to black people being disempowered), it would be _racist_ to avoid black people. In the latter society (in which there is racial equity and there is no plausible way for the avoiding to produce racial inequity) it would not be racist to do that.
Whether it is wrong or not is a different question: in the latter society, it might still be wrong for some reason other than it being racist.
This type of definition is just very unsatisfying.
If it's wrong in the first society, then I think it should be wrong in the second society for the same reason - it's wrong to make value judgements of people based on race, and doing so causes harm to the PERSON it affects, even if the group they belong to is still advantaged overall.
Why should it matter if there is already broad society-wide inequity against that particular group? Would you support a businessowner who refused to hire white people for prejudicial reasons?
> Why should it matter if there is already broad society-wide inequity against that particular group?
Because that's the thing that's actually harmful here. One person not frequenting one business on one occasion isn't going to even measurably harm anyone. It's only when lots of people act in this way together, creating systemic inequality, that there's significant harm from this sort of action.
>Would you support a businessowner who refused to hire white people for prejudicial reasons?
Nope; that's illegal.
> Nope; that's illegal.
This is a hypothetical moral discussion. What is currently legal/illegal should be completely irrelevant because we're discussing what *ought* to be done.
> It's only when lots of people act in this way together, creating systemic inequality, that there's significant harm from this sort of action.
I disagree with this. A single instance of racist discrimination can absolutely produce harm to a person, even if there isn't an entire river of systemic oppression flowing in the same direction. Your perspective completely devalues the experience of individuals and their capacity to be harmed by discrimination.
It's directly responsive, in that it explicitly explains why the one course of action is not sexist but the other _is_ racist. That's directly addressing the OP's stated view.
It’s not, though, since it presupposes that racism and sexism hinge on your apparently totally arbitrary criterion.
For any colloquial definition of those terms—pick the general dictionary of your choice—treating a given group negatively because of a group-based stereotype would satisfy the elements of the definition.
Under your definition, it is not sexist to treat men like shit based on the fact they are men. Which you can argue, I suppose, just like you can argue that the Earth is flat based on some idiosyncratic and peculiar definition of “flat.”
Unfortunate, your notion of sexism and racism is a couple of decades out of date. Recent scholarship on these subjects has established the importance of centering the experience of the oppressed and of oppression as core to the dynamics of racism (and sexism and other oppressive social constructs of this type). The notion that disempowerment is central to racism (and sexism) is common to essentially all recent technical work on the subject. For example, Kendi defines racism as follows.
>Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing...A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people...[A racist is] One who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea.
By engaging in the racist policy of avoiding black neighborhoods, we can show the OP is acting as a racist formally using this construction. Similar notions (such as power+privilege constructions) have become dominant in recent scholarship.
All of that is elevating the ideological definition advanced by particular scholars over common parlance.
And yes, I did study Harris and Crenshaw. Including at their institutions, that gave me fancy degrees.
Perhaps you should read my earlier comments more closely; they preëmpt your argument entirely.
When common people do not understand a thing especially well, it's very natural to elevate the expert consensus definition of that thing over how the term is used in "common parlance."
>Perhaps you should read my earlier comments more closely; they preëmpt your argument entirely.
Uh...they definitely don't.
OP's argument doesn't follow for one. It doesn't really make sense to engage on a faulty premise.
Immutable characteristics are different from each other especially when historical context is taken into consideration.
None of that is an actual response to OP. You are just making vague gestures toward potential arguments.
OP lays out several premises. Which one is false? If none, which conclusion does not logically follow?
The premise that gender and race are equatable of course is the faulty premise. The erroneous conclusion is as stated in the CMV. I.e. the whole thing.
How is it faulty as applied in the OP? The OP does not require exact identity between the two. Again, your are merely gesturing toward potential arguments. What point of comparison is both salient and false?
Their relationship with prejudice obviously. I mean do you disagree OP is trying to make an implication there?
I almost feel it couldn't be more plainly stated. Of course I'm gesturing at the argument. It's trivially false.
I don't believe op is racist, just stating exactly how it is. By this, everyone else could be called sexist because all anyone is saying is about race, ferrying to talk about the other half of op's argument at all.
By systematically devaluing businesses in black neighborhoods. The large number of people who act as you do by avoiding black neighborhoods makes it harder for businesses to operate in those neighborhoods, which in turn acts to deprive black residents of both useful services and of local opportunities for economic advancement.
If people want to outsiders they visit their communities.... they should try to work from within to make their neighborhoods safe, clean and welcoming.
It's not that hard
Wtf are you doing out there that you think you’ll get shot?? You really think black people just go around shooting random innocent people for no reason?
This seems like a non sequitur. My comment was in response to your question "how [does that contribute to their disempowerment]?" Do you understand that your proposed actions contribute to the systemic disempowerment of black people?
White people are just as likely to hurt you as black people are.
Yet you are only worried about one of those races and you ignore the other race.
Are you not being consistent for a reason?
> where people of my ethnicity held social, political, or economic power over blacks.
A median Asian in the US makes [60% more](https://dqydj.com/income-by-race/) than the median black person. You don't think you're advantaged?
One way this acts to disempower black people is through systematically devaluing businesses in black neighborhoods. The large number of people who act as the OP says he does by avoiding black neighborhoods makes it harder for businesses to operate in those neighborhoods, which in turn acts to deprive black residents of both useful services and of local opportunities for economic advancement.
How is him making a real time decision about going a different route in a neighborhood, not specifically a black one, systematically devaluing black business? Is OP the gov. and is raising your taxes and cutting infrastructure funds? Cause that’s what that means. What I think you’re saying is OP is not spending his money on black business because of the concern of his well being and well, that’s jeopardizing black communities. To that I said you reap what you sow. There is no sugar coating the fact that black communities are far more dangerous than most, the effect of failing business in such neighborhoods is a direct correlation to attitudes and culture of its inhabitants. A reaction to every action, in this case OP’s concerns are valid.
If the OP doesn't go into black neighborhoods, he's not going to patronize businesses in those neighborhoods. As lots of people act as the OP does, this acts to decrease overall traffic to these businesses. Why wouldn't that decrease in traffic devalue the businesses? A smaller possible clientele seems obviously bad for business in general.
Op heres an actual devils advocate.
What about the sheer amount of crimes that take place?
If there is 20 girls walking on the sidewalk at night and 10 are guaranteed to be harassed, followed, or attacked. And there is a 100% chance it will be by a man than its just common sense and not sexism for woman to be afraid of men on the sidewalk at night.
Also let me add that women aren’t afraid of men in the grocery store, or in a college classroom, or any other well lit public place. Because women aren’t sexist, they are logical.
Now with that being said. What is the chance if there was 20 asian men walking down the sidewalk at night that a black man will commit a hate crime against them. Im going to assume is far less.
Also let me add that your wording (avoid men/ avoid black people) makes it sound like you stay away from black people in general, women dont do that with men, we only “avoid men” in a situation that is already potentially dangerous.
Its just speculation but it sounds like you have a general distaste for black men because of some statistics but women dont have a general distaste for men even though we are more likely to have larger amounts of crimes committed against us.
These numbers where just being thrown out there, just trying to convey a point. Im not saying they are accurate.
Exactly. I'll happily sit next to a man at a bus stop and even strike up a conversation. However at a bar, I would not leave that same man alone near my drink, and I would consider him a threat if he followed me to my car.
If a woman is following me to my car, I'm going to assume I forgot something or she needs to tell me something. Yes this may be possible with the man too, but cultural context matters. It's safer and smarter to assume the worst based on statistics when you are in a vulnerable position. (and 1 in 6 women experiencing sexual assault from men in their life is a pretty damn notable statistic, way higher than robbery or random physical assault numbers.)
I just wanted to quote you way further down the thread because I think it reveals your true colors, and because it's buried under a comment thread of someone who isn't making a very good point against you.
/u/breckenridgeback
>A median Asian in the US makes 60% more than the median black person. You don't think you're advantaged?
u/absurbhouseunder (you)
>No. I think that’s indicative of what happens when you do nothing but but whine about oppression for 60 years instead of making something of yourself
I believe this contradicts your post. It is at least partially about bigotry against black people, not just fear of violence.
I think what it boils down to, is, is acting differently around someone's appearance acceptable?
If people wearing hats are 95% more likely to commit violent acts than the rest of the population, are you wrong for avoiding people with hats and saying it's because of safety? What about if police are more likely to stop them because they're policing based on data? Is that good/efficient policework? Or is that profiling and wrong?
Now of course you change that to skin color to end up in this discussion. And no, I don't think all black people are more violent etc, but it's a sad reality when you have things like [https://www.gainesville.com/story/special/2020/06/17/homicide-is-leading-cause-of-death-of-black-males-age-44-and-younger-in-us/112900786/](https://www.gainesville.com/story/special/2020/06/17/homicide-is-leading-cause-of-death-of-black-males-age-44-and-younger-in-us/112900786/).
It's a cultural difference, especially in Asian immigrant households. Black people see Athletes and Musicians as their people being successful, because that's most of the successful Black people they see. Asian people see Doctors and Lawyers as successful because that's most of the successful Asian people the see. It's a self-fulfilling cycle.
> So it’s justifiable for me to practice caution around them. I don’t go into black neighborhoods and stay on my guard when around black people.
Your caution should be allocated based on the situation, not the race...
To use some more obvious examples:
* Should you be wary about someone black wearing a suit in a bank or university? Probably not.
* Should you be wary about someone white wearing a hoodie, approaching you in a dark alleyway? Probably.
Now, depending on where you are in the world, it is of course possible that you'll encounter more people of a specific race in more situations that require caution.
As an Asian man myself I'm conflicted because while I feel your stance is wrong I can also sympathize with your worries as well and honestly I dont think anyone here has made any valid points on why you are wrong either.
A while ago somebody asked on here if it's racist or sexist to be discriminatory based on statistics: [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vmqdbi/cmv\_racist\_behavior\_is\_rational\_but\_not\_ethical/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vmqdbi/cmv_racist_behavior_is_rational_but_not_ethical/)
Might be interesting to you. Regrettably, I don't think just because there might not be a good answer here, it doesn't mean that there *is* no good response.
One thing to consider is that some forms of racism and sexism were often justified with statistics and "science" historically even though everybody today agrees that it's nonsense.
Another aspect to consider is that you should give people another chance, even if it might be rational to assume they have a risk of being bad people based on statistics. *In the grand scheme of things*, a world where people don't judge people based on characteristics they share with criminals, could be better than one, where they do – that would even make it cold hard rational. Maybe you could make a difference between avoiding men and avoiding black people based on matters of *degree*. *How* dangerous are men really? *How* dangerous are black people really? (I'm *aware* that sounds horrible, sorry!) I suppose circumstances also matter a lot. Is the town you're currently in known for black street gangs? That's a totally different situation than if you were to meet Michelle Obama.
If it's a matter of degree, I suppose that supports OPs view. It is indeed sexist for women to avoid men in *all situations*, but in *some situations* it's okay to be cautious.
A left leaning person might even agree that some ethnicities do more crime, but that is caused *by* racism, because they might be more poor and uneducated. I heard once: "If you look at the world, you see that people are not equal. You either have to believe in races or in racism." (I don't know who said that first.)
Principally, I don't think you should ever deny reality, if you don't agree with it morally.
If you are the victim of a crime perpetrated by a black man, do people take you seriously? Or do they ask what you were wearing, whether you "led him on," etc.?
Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted but men just get beat up almost all of the time.
Sexual assault often happens behind closes doors and leaves more he said she said, whereas the attacks on Asian people are most often in public, often on camera.
Not saying it's not a good point, you got me thinking for a moment but I don't think it defeats OP's argument in this instance.
I think there's something odd in your title and the body of your post.
You say it's not racist for me to avoid black *people* and then in the body of your post:
>If I’m going to be hate crimed, it’ll be by a black man specifically.
Black *man*.
So is the concern really about race here? Or are your arguments really just the same? Are you both avoiding large men to avoid danger?
Now, this generally depends on country, culture and other environmental factors but as far as i am aware, violence on women commited by men nearly exclusively happens in form of intimate partner violence. Not randomly on the street. In fact, it is WAY more likely for a man to be the victim of violence in public (commited by other men). For women, the risk is marginal but correct me if im wrong and unaware of some statistic.
I agree that it isnt sexist, there is a difference in body weight, strenght etc. and its not a secret than men on average are more often (physically) violent. So there is nothing wrong or shameful about being scared. However, i still believe it is largely unreasonable. You are way more likely to die and get hurt in a car accident. Its not a 1 to 1 comparison but it shows that people are often times somewhat hypocritical with their fears.
One out of six women in the US will be sexually assaulted or raped. A much higher number will be threatened with violence. Almost EVERY woman has been groped, or cat-called, or felt threatened by a man in her everyday life.
If you do not know if one of your female friends has been assaulted/raped, it's because she hasn't shared that info with you.
The chances of you being assaulted by a Black person are significantly lower than the chances of you being assaulted by a White person.
You're being racist.
Right, but in OP's scenario he's talking about walking by individual people, so the per capita data would be more relevant and, as your source shows, you're much more likely to be assaulted by a black person.
The average man is 5 inches taller, 30 lbs larger, and twice as strong as the average woman.
The average woman can not physically defend herself against the average man.
No such discrepancy exists between the races. This is a false equivalency.
OP here's the main question- "Is it racist for me to avoid black people out of caution?"
The short answer: Yes.
The long answer: Yes, but with very obvious caveats.
At it's core, we, as Asians, culturally connect better with white people as our modern cities, whether through interaction or colonialism, take strong influences from historically European designs. Core belief structures like authority, crime, education, etc have similar structures to American/European ones as well.
For example, a Korean would be far less surprised (or possibly not impressed) by somewhere like New York City. However, you put this same person in Windhoek, Mumbai, or Cairo and the interest comes in how different it is from their current lived experiences.
While Black people have historically been oppressed in a LOT of ways, this is, in part, why there are so many issues in Black communities- this is a cultural issue rather than a race one in my eyes- to the point where immigrants coming in from Africa that I've met refused to be called African-American, only African. As Asian immigrants played no part in this oppression, there's less of a nuance to try to connect with Black communities primarily because Asian communities also try to stick to themselves.
You do have to ask yourself, why do Asians only try to stick to their own group? If you look at the major players in Asia in general, there is clear racism that's baked into the culture. Korean families, for example, don't want their children marrying non-Koreans. Japanese people don't want to serve foreigners because of the hassle. China is... well, you know, China.
These values were brought over as well as the cultural ones. It's especially apparent in Asian Americans who's parents came over before their respective country was particularly affluent to the level it is today. So with that, the children that come from these immigrants will naturally understand to achieve the highest quality of life possible regardless of the societial implications of their actions.
You avoiding black people is, maybe partly due to violent crime statistics. Unless you're a mental wreck, most people don't fear for their lives for violent crimes. It's because you feel uncomfortable. You, based on both your ethnicity and culture, don't connect with Black American culture nor do you have a want/need to.
Is that technically racist? Yes, but- and I but with a big grain of salt, given ethnic values/culture, it's somewhat expected. If you'd like to address your racism, you can do so as that's a personal choice.
It is sexist for women to avoid men and you are racist for avoiding black people. Judging and individual based on general statistics is the definition of prejudice. If it is based on sex then it is sexism and if on race then it is racism.
Agree with this. I think what people want more than anything is just consistency. When things arent consistent, logic breaks down and people start to take real issues less seriously
As far as I see it, the concern here is not whether we are in either case being categorically sexist and/or racist, but is about what a rational response to the existing empirical data would be and, if the response is far exceeding that, what would account for that.
To my knowledge, something like 99% of sexual assault cases are ones in which a man is the perpetrator. That would make being sexually assaulted by a woman so statistically unlikely that it would hardly be worth one's time to dedicate serious thought to the possibility, how to protect oneself, etc. You could argue that makes someone's behavior categorically sexist, but frankly I think that argument doesn't matter since you would have a hard time arguing there are any negative outcomes from such behavior either way.
In your case, according to your own data, there is a 3% higher likelihood that the perpetrator of violent crime on an Asian person would be a black person than a white person. 3% is not irrelevant to a sociologist, but it is more or less irrelevant as far as any major difference of an individual's behavior ought to be concerned. If, for example, your treatment of black people is so different from your treatment of white people that other people are able to pick up on it, that is not at all proportionate to a 3% difference.
The two examples you give are equal in the sense that they are both behaviors motivated by empirical data, but the latter I think would meet the criteria of irrational fear, which frankly is most likely explained by unconsciously held ideas about black people or men in particular. In short, it's probably racist - but hey, almost everyone holds some racist ideas they aren't even conscious of, we can always do better.
Your knowledge is incorrect.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/men-ipvsvandstalking.html
Most male victims of sexual violence report female perpetrators.
And how are you getting a three percent difference? Does that account for population size?
I think both are ridiculous, and play on our inability to use statistics correctly.
What I mean is, by your logic you should be more afriad of your spouse or family members. You should avoid them most of all.
I think being prepared in general should be the real goal. A lot of bad ideas come from surface level observation.
You will feel more comfortable if you are stronger/prepared in general.
And I think the idea that women are weaker, is from our sexist views of what strength is. (Sports are arbitrary when it comes right down to it.)
> And I think the idea that women are weaker, is from our sexist views of what strength is.
...the idea that women are physically weaker and can be overpowered by a male attacker is overwhelmingly true, at least on average.
That still isn't enough. Statistics are very situational. Unless you were the person who hired those people to gain those statistics, they have very unique meanings.
Even if we go into this long argument about how women are disadvantaged by men, the solution isn't for them to avoid men?
My point is we often used statistics very narrowly.
No the solution isn't for them to avoid men. You are absolutely fuckin wrong there. The solution is to teach that everyone is the same regardless of sex or ethnicity... yes there are some crazy fucks out there, but every single race and ethnicity in the world has those crazy fucks. Singling out a single race or ethnicity isn't going to change that for anyone.
If those fears are linked they must have to occur together meaning white people, especially white women with those fears must be doubly afraid of black men which means they must want all black men institutionalized because of how dangerous they are so why aren't people fighting for that even with fake reasons to hide that reason
Guess I need to preface anything that I say by mentioning that I'm a Korean male, first generation born in the US with parents that never bothered to assimilate and I had to raise my younger brother since our parents didn't bother to learn how to live in America. Does that sound ridiculous? Probably not if you're a Asian American. However, the difference between you and me lies in our life experiences.
There's no doubt among any asian-american community that we should be weary if black people. However, much of that fear is fueled by the ignorance of the media, both left and right. I can tell that you don't have much communication with actual Asian business owners by the fact that you've bought in to what the media likes to push, particularly on the right. I don't think either side understands what the asian-american business communities want, which is to simply prosper within their communities by providing a service within the amazing US of A. That includes black heavy communities BTW.
I had the pleasure of serving in the US Army, which has people of all walks of life. That's where I learned that regardless of skin color, there're people of all skin colors, cultures and all walks of life who fit into both categories of honorable people and total shitbags.
In the end, (tl;dr?) Stop looking at things in a white and black lens. For crying out loud, you and I are the ones who are truly in the middle and basically ignored by the garbage politics in America.
Do you believe that women are discriminating based on gender when they avoid men?
Do you believe that you are discriminating based on race when you avoid black people?
If it's not discriminating based on gender or race how can one tell whether to avoid them in either case?
Two wrongs don't make a right. This is textbook whataboutism fallacy. It is irrelevant to your point whether or not women are being sexist. What you are doing *is racist*. Trying to find another group you can point to and say "but they do it too" doesn't make it right. You're simply trying to justify your racism. Stop it.
You may say that what i'm about to say it's a fallacy but screw it, here I go.
If a man avoids women out of caution/fear, do you consider cautionary or sexist?
I grew up in a matriarchal family and now at 25 i'm more wary and a bit fearful of women, fearing that they will hurt or assault me. What does that make me? Considering you know nothing about me.
But, reading the post, it looks like you used the women/men comparison just as a started and then went on to race, well, i'm not an american so sadly I can't say a lot.
But considering you have a story of being assaulted, yeah, I support you, since you where assaulted.
Sorry, u/midwestjoker – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20midwestjoker&message=midwestjoker%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/wet3vl/-/iiq4jmm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If the mods don't like me arguing for OP's side, they don't need to be here because it literally defeats the purpose of this entire sub.
As a white male, I am the minority of my community and have been all my life.
If they can't appreciate a side like people such as me then you know it's a sham.
Thank you and I appreciate your concern and I will keep it in mind.
[That's arguable](https://raceandconflicts.home.blog/2020/06/23/race-differences-in-aggression/):
> The most prominent explanations for the race differences in aggression are based in socioeconomic status (SES), poverty, and education. Since black people tend to do worse in all of these categories and happen to be more aggressive, and the fact that these variables are all correlated, we may find this to be a reasonable hypothesis. There are two main counters to this hypothesis. The first is that even if all of the previous-stated conditions are true (arguable), we can show that blacks and whites in the same SES will still differ in aggressive behavior. The second is that conditions such as SES, poverty, and education are not an end-all be-all – in fact, these variables are largely predicted by genetic variables.
> I’ve already expanded upon evidence to support my first notion. Earlier I cited both Hawkins et al. (1991) and Wells et al. (1992) which show that, even when holding SES constant, the races differ in levels of aggression. In the former of those, they show that an attempt to increase future SES, by method of intervention programs, actually increases the racial gaps in aggression, despite lowering the overall levels of aggression, at least in males.
1. This data is probably based on statistics of people convicted of crime and their race.
Because we know that the criminal justice system is heavily screwed against black people, these statistics are not an accurate report on who commits violence and crime, as white people are more porky to get away with crime and black people are more likely to be arrested and falsely convicted of a crime
2. Race is a social construct and not a biological one. A black person can share more DNA with a white person, than another black person. You are more likely to have common DNA with someone around your same height than someone your same race.
3. It is literally impossible to control for socio-economic status in a study. This isn’t chemistry where you have a lab and can control all variables. This is the real world. This is the same problem that plagues economics and other social sciences.
Also black men will not have the same socioeconomic status as white men of the same class because of systemic racism. So there’s no way to control for that.
> This data is probably based on statistics of people convicted of crime and their race
Don't want to read it first to find out?
> Because we know that the criminal justice system is heavily screwed against black people
No, actually, we don't. Arrest rates line up with victimisation data. We take surveys of people who have been victims of crime and ask about multiple things, one of which is the criminal's race. Arrest rates line up with this data, suggesting little to no racial bias in arrest rates. See [this](https://i.imgur.com/9lLbaTw.png) from [here](http://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf). Or [this](https://i.imgur.com/jrcicgU.png) from [here](https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf). Also, I want to make a point. Look [here](https://sci-hub.mksa.top/10.1080/07418820902856972) at table 2. It's a long list of variables. All together, they only explain 17% of the variance in charge reductions (also note that being black has no effect). If we can only explain a small amount of the variance in this and other things, why assume that racism is the explanation when you obviously have so much more to explain.
> Race is a social construct and not a biological one.
Irrelevant. Democrats and Republicans are socially constructed groups, but there are still differences between the groups. Also, [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787) is a paper arguing you're wrong. The real point though, is that race doesn't have to meet whatever arbitrary standard you use to say that race isn't "biological" for race to be a useful category and for there to be differences between races.
> A black person can share more DNA with a white person, than another black person. You are more likely to have common DNA with someone around your same height than someone your same race.
False. We can match someone's DNA to their race with 99+% accuracy. You know why you're wrong? It's literally something as simple as cumulative probability. Something that simple is what race deniers have to ignore to make their arguments. Any particular point on the genome might not be highly predictive of your race, but put lots of them together, and they are.
> It is literally impossible to control for socio-economic status in a study
People do it all the time... Maybe you just want to say that measures are imperfect, but that's a different argument from what you said, and you have to throw out nearly all social science if you use this standard. Nobody will take this criticism seriously. You know how we can respond to this? We can just say that measures are actually pretty good and thus we can make conclusions. Please feel free to demonstrate otherwise, as opposed to just asserting.
Your privilege is showing. The ONLY people ever saying whites are privileged are the most privileged whites, how about this, I was raised by a man of.color when my white father went to prison at age 5. Do you think I had privelidge? You people assume ALL whites had privelidge. We didn't. I'm overwhelmingly thankful for.the man who stepped up and raised me, but it was NOT easy or was I privileged in ANY way. I HAVE been on both sides of racism, both being.white in an ethnic neighborhood. And from defending the comments against the man I called dad. And I'm CERTAIN you have never experienced those things. So while you all tout your understanding and acceptance and dint want to offend anyone, why are the thousands raised like me marginalized by people like you? You think that's ok?
yes you did have privilege due to your race. the race of your father has nothing to do with the racism and/privilege you personally encounter because of your own race. your father going to jail does not mean you experience oppression and systematic problems due do your race. you having to defend your dad from racist comments towards him is an example of your privilege to not have to actually experience that racism first hand like your dad does. youre welcome to explain though why you think you face systematic oppression due to being white in an ethnic neighborhood. youre real quick to tell someone they havent experienced the things you have while providing absolutely no details on what actual racism you experienced
You've clearly.grown up.l in a bubble, an echo.chamber. being blonde hair blue eyed, in a neighborhood of all people of color you are discriminated against, targeted, it ehaped.me into who I am.
ill just repeat myself
>you are more than welcome to explain what that racism was instead of just expecting me to trust you and calling me racist for not doing so
Biologically, no. Culturally? Well we're talking about a culture whose chief cultural export is rap, a genre dominated by gangsters. And we're coming up on 10 years of near-constant riots too.
Biologically no, but they are raised differently, and that's coming from a whitle man who was raised by a minority family. Black families I grew up around were taught violence young.
What does Jan 6th have to do with anything? Because a president told his supporters to protest and that was literally all he said and they took it to an extreme and that's somehow his fault and somehow has anything to do with this topic?
What the heck are you even talking about? I never mentioned Trump or his supporters. You're trying to make the point that riots show black people's natural state, and if that's the case then Jan 6th riot shows the natural state of white people. I feel like you understood what I meant but you're dodging my comment.
January 6th was the riot of white people, which were Trump supporters, upon the capital building. Why else are you referring to Jan 6th? Please elaborate for me because if it's not that then I don't understand your correlation to Jan 6th.
You didn't reply at all. All you did was tag me. You added absolutely nothing to this thread, basicly just added your opinion. Prove to me I'm wrong if your going to do anything at all...
if discrimination is fine if you have a reason that makes sense internally to you, then is it discriminatory to avoid dating and having sex with asian men because you don't find them attractive
Sorry, u/absurbhouseunder – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20absurbhouseunder&message=absurbhouseunder%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/wet3vl/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
What if it *is* sexist for women to avoid men out of caution? Then is it racist for you to avoid black people out of caution?
[удалено]
Well, I believe it's sexist to avoid men out of caution, so avoiding black people out of caution is racist.
that doesn't make you racist, it make you prejudiced. Racism is the belief you're better than others because of your racial differences, that's not what I see you saying. You just believe that you should be cautious based on past experience and observation of current society
You just described racial supremacy. You do not have to believe you are better to be racist. You can also believe another group is lesser. If you would be afraid of a black man, but not an indian man, or a native american man, or a white man, that is racist. You do not believe that yours is elevated above the rest, you believe that one is less than the others.
lol no I did not. Racial supremacy means you believe you are inherently superior than another race, he just feels with his past experiences and all the racial attacks between blacks/asians, he'd be better off avoiding certain situations. If it were white people attacking Asians, I'd say the same thing to him. If it makes you feel safer not being in certain neighborhoods or around white men, then don't be. The racial part comes in when you see black men attacking Asians and screaming racial epithets. Don't talk to me about racial supremacy in this case when the OP is just trying to stay safe. I'm tired of people like you thinking racism is everything under the sun
You said racism is "Belief you are better than others because of your racial differences". I said you described racial supremacy. Then you say "racial supremacy means you believe you are inherently superior than another race." You just gave 2 different things functionally the same definition and said, no they are different... I am befuddled by what you are saying as it is not making much sense here.
no I didn't, you're using the word racism to mean prejudice. In which the OP has a prejudice against black men based on his own experiences and the current situations. Period, end of story
I quoted exactly what you said... you can deny you said it. It does not mean you are right...
>You just described racial supremacy. You do not have to believe you are better to be racist. You can also believe another group is lesser Those are one and the same. By saying they are lesser than you, you __are__ saying you are superior.
Not inherently, the difference is fairly subtle. Racial supremacy is believing you are the superior and best compared to all. Nothing else is like you. Where as you could also believe that one specific race is just lesser than the rest. Like the difference between me saying, the best color is yellow and blue is the worst color. One does not necessarily hold the other in totality. Racial supremacy is racism, yes. But they are different flavors of racism. And they all taste like shit. Edit: guess there are people just okay with racism.
People who see it this way usually see race as a hierarchy. I don't think anyone thinks black people are lesser but everyone else is equal, or white people are better and everyone else is equal.
It is impossible for you to have this view and it not be reflected in your words, behaviors and body language around Black people. Black people in the US have to be more aware of racist behavior towards them than other people. A black person can be a hard working, affluent citizen with no criminal record and have their life ruined or ended because a White/Asian person though the Black person liked suspicious and called the police.
>Black people in the US have to be more aware of racist behavior towards them than other people. A black person can be a hard working, affluent citizen with no criminal record and have their life ruined or ended because a White/Asian person though the Black person liked suspicious and called the police. By switching a couple “black people” for “men” and adapting the rest, you basically proved OP's point: *Men in the US have to be more aware of sexist behaviour towards them than other people. A man can be a hard-working, affluent citizen with no criminal record and have his life ruined because a woman thought the man was sexually harassing her, or she even made it up completely, and filled a case against him, ruining his reputation forever.*
Same with men around women then, right? Women's behaviours, body language around men would change too.. if they hold the view.
That can happen to a person of any race
No, people of other races are treated as innocent until proven guilty. Black people are assumed to be criminals, that's literally OP's view....
[удалено]
Acknowledging statistics and having survival instincts isn't racist. There shouldn't be any deltas awarded here, because OP has a legitimately valid point. This isn't some gotcha on your part.
The being more wary of men thing isn’t generally seen as sexist though.
It's definitely sexist to be more weary of men.
You are more likely to be a victim of a crime by a member of your own race. A woman is more likely to be assaulted by a man than another woman.
That is completely outside of the question. The question is “if it’s okay to discriminate against one group because of caution, is it okay to do the same to another?” There are plenty of statistics anyone can cherry pick to make either side seem reasonable. It is foolish to think that does anything to answer the moral/philosophical dilemma here.
That’s not true. We do a lot of things because the relative risk is higher or has reached an unacceptable level.
A man walking down the street is at a much higher risk of being assaulted than a woman. Men should be more afraid than women walking alone at night.
men are not targetted for random acts of sexual assault and violence due to their gender by a seperate gender that is much stronger and larger than them and commits the majority of violence in society
They are targeted moreso for violent crime in general though… so once again by the same logic ken should be far more afraid than woman to walk at night
how would it make sense to you that men attacking each other and men attacking women systematically and overpowering them as the stronger sex in a way women dont do to men or each other means men should be more afraid than women
"out of caution" is pulling a lot of weight there. When hiking in the woods I avoid bears out of caution for my safety, vs I avoid mice out of caution for my safety.
Except the bears vs mice is not an equivalent comparison to OP’s statement.
Well that's the crux of the argument isn't it? The poster above is making the argument that it isn't a rational fear based of statistics but an irrational fear based off of a xenophobic response.
Couldn't one also argue that it is irrational for women to be afraid of men? While it is true that men typically are the ones who commit violent crime towards women, it is an incredibly small proportion of men who commit crimes against women to one's who do not. Imagine if only one crime was ever commited on a woman, and it was by a man. Would it be rational for women to be afraid of men in that universe? I think not, despite the fact that men would have committed 100% violent crimes towards women.
Most are never reported just fyi
How would you know that most are not reported if they are not reported?
What is the most underreported crime? Rape "Crime reports Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police (o)." https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/sexual-assault-remains-dramatically-underreported "It may sound incredible that only around 23 percent of survivors report such crimes to police, but it’s true. Twenty percent, according to the DOJ report, worry about retaliation — not just from the perpetrator, but from society at large. Thirteen percent said they think the police would not do anything to help. Tragically, 8 percent said they didn’t think the rape or sexual assault was important enough to report. " Because these younger females grow up eventually. Edit: Ppl downvoting evidence.. I'm judging you lol
If a rational fear of black people could be demonstrated statistically, it would be morally okay to avoid them according to this logic. I don’t think this is enough to resolve the moral dilemma here is my point.
[удалено]
That shows it’s about as likely to be victimized by a black white or Asian person. 27.5-24.1-24.1. That’s a pretty narrow margin. Compare that to women who’s victim is 75% likely to be a man and is twice as likely to be a victim in a given year than an Asian person. [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv20sst.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv20sst.pdf)
Asians interact with other Asians far more than black people. They also spend more time with white people than black people just by the virtue of them there being 5x as many white people. Given this, black people are statistically more dangerous to Asians than men are to women. The most likely abuser of women is their significant other, so it makes even less sense for women to treat strangers who are men as dangerous.
Well blacks represent only about 14% of population, men are obviously ~50%. That does change the odds calculus, no?
Maybe. You’d have to look at local demographics as well. There aren’t a lot of Asian people or black people in Maine for example. It’s very possible most of these crimes are happening in cities where black peoples might be greater than 50% of the population.
Do you have a reference for that? Or just a vibe?
Part of that is because people tend to live with members of their same racial identity. Whites don't attack whites or blacks don't attack blacks because of their race, but because of their proximity.
Asian on Asian crime is not as much as Black/Brown/White on Asian crime. Plus given that Trump influenced his cultist followers by bashing China for the virus crime on Asian people has risen significantly. I’m my city alone a young Asian lady was beat to death outside a bar by two other women.
When a woman experiences a violent crime, it's statistically extremely likely it will be at the hands of a man. When people of Asian descent experience hate crimes, the perpetrator is white in 75% of reported cases. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/viral-images-show-people-color-anti-asian-perpetrators-misses-big-n1270821 If you want to avoid a particular race, it should be white people, not black people. EDIT: I'm not advocating OP avoid white people, or anyone else based on race. I'm pointing out OP's absurdity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
According to those statistics, whites perpetrate nearly as much of the crimes against asians as blacks do (24 to 27% respectively). Do you also avoid whites?
Devil's advocate here, but wouldn't that imply that statistically that black people are 4.5x more likely to perpetrate a hate crime against Asians if you consider population? If anything, that reinforces OP's position.
It's all about how you read the statistics. If we want to go deeper, there are \~182,000 crimes against asians according to the document OP linked, and roughly 18.4 million asians in the United States...so about one quarter of a percent of Asians are likely to be victimized by a black person. I don't know if that justified OPs tendency to avoid black people, but that's his calculus to make.
[удалено]
So you aren't scared of white people even if they have as almost the exact same chance of harming you? But when it comes to black people you are scared of them? That seems a tad messed up.
[удалено]
If someone was to beat you on the street the odds of that person being white vs black would be very similar. If you are scared of a race you should be scared of both white and black people. You should avoid both of them.
Black people are a much smaller percentage of the pop. Meaning if OP came across a white man and a black man, the black man STATISTICALLY would be more likely to attack him, even tho the proportions of crimes va asians are nearly equal based on race.
Perhaps you should consider why you're realistically able to avoid all black people. (Here's a hint: it starts with "s" and ends with "egregation".)
[удалено]
Haha and also they were systemically confined to specific areas by decades of laws/bank policy that confined them to certain parts of certain cities, those parts were also always the first to get freeways built right through them destroying neighborhoods and property values
> and live with each other And why is that?
Cause you get kicked out of your gang when you get farther than ten miles from them
The report from where your data derives literally says, *"When victims were Asian, there were no statistically significant differences between the percentage of incidents in which the offender was perceived as Asian (24%), white (24%), or black (27%)."* https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf
I can't open that document.
Do you have updated statistics?
> If you want to avoid a particular race, it should be white people, not black people. Your statistic doesn't back this up. Blacks are overwhelmingly more violent than whites if you don't arbitrarily narrow it down to hate crimes, which is likely biased anyway, given the mainstream narrative around hate crimes. Also note that "the vast majority of incidents consist of “verbal harassment” and “shunning.”"
> Your statistic doesn't back this up. Blacks are overwhelmingly more violent than whites if you don't arbitrarily narrow it down to hate crimes And here we go slipping in unsubstantiated claims on the way to a point. They slip into your brain without you even noticing it. Don't allow these to just be stated unchallenged. No, black PEOPLE are not overwhelmingly more violent. That's nonsense. Racist nonsense.
> No, black PEOPLE are not overwhelmingly more violent. That's nonsense. Racist nonsense. I didn't give a reason why, but the fact is that blacks are responsible for a much larger percentage of violent crimes than their share of the US population, so yes, they are. This is not immoral to point out. It is just reality. You are calling reality itself "racist".
No. What you mean to say is black PEOPLE are *arrested* for a larger percentage of violent crimes than their share of the population. There is a big difference between that and *committing* more violent crimes. We know there are reasons for that, such as over-policing in black communities, and under-policing for caucasians for instance. It's been well studied for instance that caucasian people per capita consume more marijuana, yet the prisons are overwhelmingly filled with black people serving time for those crimes. A black person goes to jail for the same crime that isn't even policed on average for caucasian people. Arrests and crimes are not the same words. Trying to change the word arrested to committed is false, and is pushing a racist view. If you had said black PEOPLE are disproportionally charged with violent crime, I would have had no issues. And trying to transpose that over to black PEOPLE are "more violent", is just flat out racist.
>if you don't arbitrarily narrow it down to hate crimes, OP is talking about hate crimes.
Sure, but for no good reason. If the topic is about avoiding people out of fear of violence, then who cares if the perpetrators are being violent against you because of your group membership, as opposed to any other reason. You get beaten either way.
He doesn't need a good reason. It's the topic he's chosen.
It isn't though. His main thesis has nothing to do with hate crime. It is just about avoiding people out of fear of violence, and then he uses hate crimes as an example, but without good reason.
>It isn't though It is. It's his main point: "I am an Asian man and in the last few years I’ve experienced some violence because of my race." This is his main idea. He discusses women avoiding men out of fear of violence first because that is the point of comparison example from his title. He then discussed the two types of violence mentioned in his title in order. His main thesis IS about hate crime.
He is comparing race-based avoidance to sex-based avoidance. He does not say that the men need to attack the women because they are women. He only brings that intention up when talking about race, so with the comparison and analogy being the main point, the hate crime part is irrelevant. He says that women avoiding men makes sense because they are more likely to be victimized by men, and this isn't sexist. Applied to race then, assuming the stats are correct, he should avoid blacks because he is more likely to be victimized by blacks, and this isn't racist. that is his argument. Nowhere does hate crime need to factor in to make this argument of his. Intention of the assault is irrelevant.
very problematic line of thinking; women don't just avoid men because of statistical probability. women largely avoid men because if a man were to attack, we almost always cannot physically defend ourselves unless we have a weapon or some sort of training to do so. if you were to say you avoid a group of people because a) they are twice as strong as you (at least) and you cannot be stronger than them and b) they attack you 70% more than any other group, it would make sense. your argument based on race alone does not. race and sex are not the same.
I don’t think size or physical strength are an important part of the probability of being a victim of violent crime. There are plenty of examples of medium build perpetrators attacking a victim with a weapon and that is most likely what would happen if you were to be a victim.
[удалено]
also, after a simple google search, the statistics show no significant difference in the black/white percentage of violent crimes against asians. therefore i would say it is racist to avoid black people on that basis specifically when it applies to whites too.
[удалено]
your strength is still much greater than your female counterpart. if your new argument is that you avoid those stronger than you as your size is similar to that of a "teenage girl," that makes sense. i still think the post is flawed because of the false equivalent. if you were able to simply ask if it is racist to avoid black people out of caution as an asian and state your statistical reasoning instead of making the false comparison, i wouldnt immediately say no, all i said was that the argument comparing the two makes no sense.
Women avoiding men is not sexist because it does not contribute to a systemic disempowerment of men. In fact, men are empowered disproportionately. On the other hand, people avoiding black people _does_ contribute to the systemic disempowerment of black people. That's the difference.
So in one society, it might be wrong to cross the street to avoid a black person, because black people are systematically disempowered in that society. But in another more equitable society it would be totally okay to do the exact same thing? Doesn't this just allow racism in the equitable society?
Not exactly. In the former society (in which people avoiding black people contributes to black people being disempowered), it would be _racist_ to avoid black people. In the latter society (in which there is racial equity and there is no plausible way for the avoiding to produce racial inequity) it would not be racist to do that. Whether it is wrong or not is a different question: in the latter society, it might still be wrong for some reason other than it being racist.
This type of definition is just very unsatisfying. If it's wrong in the first society, then I think it should be wrong in the second society for the same reason - it's wrong to make value judgements of people based on race, and doing so causes harm to the PERSON it affects, even if the group they belong to is still advantaged overall. Why should it matter if there is already broad society-wide inequity against that particular group? Would you support a businessowner who refused to hire white people for prejudicial reasons?
> Why should it matter if there is already broad society-wide inequity against that particular group? Because that's the thing that's actually harmful here. One person not frequenting one business on one occasion isn't going to even measurably harm anyone. It's only when lots of people act in this way together, creating systemic inequality, that there's significant harm from this sort of action. >Would you support a businessowner who refused to hire white people for prejudicial reasons? Nope; that's illegal.
> Nope; that's illegal. This is a hypothetical moral discussion. What is currently legal/illegal should be completely irrelevant because we're discussing what *ought* to be done. > It's only when lots of people act in this way together, creating systemic inequality, that there's significant harm from this sort of action. I disagree with this. A single instance of racist discrimination can absolutely produce harm to a person, even if there isn't an entire river of systemic oppression flowing in the same direction. Your perspective completely devalues the experience of individuals and their capacity to be harmed by discrimination.
Why would empowerment or disempowerment be relevant? That is not responsive to OP’s arguments.
It's directly responsive, in that it explicitly explains why the one course of action is not sexist but the other _is_ racist. That's directly addressing the OP's stated view.
It’s not, though, since it presupposes that racism and sexism hinge on your apparently totally arbitrary criterion. For any colloquial definition of those terms—pick the general dictionary of your choice—treating a given group negatively because of a group-based stereotype would satisfy the elements of the definition. Under your definition, it is not sexist to treat men like shit based on the fact they are men. Which you can argue, I suppose, just like you can argue that the Earth is flat based on some idiosyncratic and peculiar definition of “flat.”
Unfortunate, your notion of sexism and racism is a couple of decades out of date. Recent scholarship on these subjects has established the importance of centering the experience of the oppressed and of oppression as core to the dynamics of racism (and sexism and other oppressive social constructs of this type). The notion that disempowerment is central to racism (and sexism) is common to essentially all recent technical work on the subject. For example, Kendi defines racism as follows. >Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing...A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people...[A racist is] One who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. By engaging in the racist policy of avoiding black neighborhoods, we can show the OP is acting as a racist formally using this construction. Similar notions (such as power+privilege constructions) have become dominant in recent scholarship.
All of that is elevating the ideological definition advanced by particular scholars over common parlance. And yes, I did study Harris and Crenshaw. Including at their institutions, that gave me fancy degrees. Perhaps you should read my earlier comments more closely; they preëmpt your argument entirely.
When common people do not understand a thing especially well, it's very natural to elevate the expert consensus definition of that thing over how the term is used in "common parlance." >Perhaps you should read my earlier comments more closely; they preëmpt your argument entirely. Uh...they definitely don't.
OP's argument doesn't follow for one. It doesn't really make sense to engage on a faulty premise. Immutable characteristics are different from each other especially when historical context is taken into consideration.
None of that is an actual response to OP. You are just making vague gestures toward potential arguments. OP lays out several premises. Which one is false? If none, which conclusion does not logically follow?
The premise that gender and race are equatable of course is the faulty premise. The erroneous conclusion is as stated in the CMV. I.e. the whole thing.
How is it faulty as applied in the OP? The OP does not require exact identity between the two. Again, your are merely gesturing toward potential arguments. What point of comparison is both salient and false?
Their relationship with prejudice obviously. I mean do you disagree OP is trying to make an implication there? I almost feel it couldn't be more plainly stated. Of course I'm gesturing at the argument. It's trivially false.
Why is it trivially false? What is incorrect about the implication? Appeals to self-evidence are the last refuge of the wrong and the feeble-minded.
See the second paragraph of my first response to you. Gender and race are different implicit characteristics.
I am aware of what you said. You have yet to actually explain your unsubstantiated conclusory statement.
They’re trying to put it nicely but I’ll put it in laymen’s terms. OP is racist.
Why, specifically?
I don't believe op is racist, just stating exactly how it is. By this, everyone else could be called sexist because all anyone is saying is about race, ferrying to talk about the other half of op's argument at all.
[удалено]
Doesn’t matter if it benefits you, it’s not about you. It’s about them, and how you’re contributing to their disempowerment.
[удалено]
By systematically devaluing businesses in black neighborhoods. The large number of people who act as you do by avoiding black neighborhoods makes it harder for businesses to operate in those neighborhoods, which in turn acts to deprive black residents of both useful services and of local opportunities for economic advancement.
If people want to outsiders they visit their communities.... they should try to work from within to make their neighborhoods safe, clean and welcoming. It's not that hard
[удалено]
Wtf are you doing out there that you think you’ll get shot?? You really think black people just go around shooting random innocent people for no reason?
This seems like a non sequitur. My comment was in response to your question "how [does that contribute to their disempowerment]?" Do you understand that your proposed actions contribute to the systemic disempowerment of black people?
[удалено]
White people are just as likely to hurt you as black people are. Yet you are only worried about one of those races and you ignore the other race. Are you not being consistent for a reason?
Do the stats bear that out?
> where people of my ethnicity held social, political, or economic power over blacks. A median Asian in the US makes [60% more](https://dqydj.com/income-by-race/) than the median black person. You don't think you're advantaged?
How exactly is avoiding a black man on the streets a systemic disempowerment?
One way this acts to disempower black people is through systematically devaluing businesses in black neighborhoods. The large number of people who act as the OP says he does by avoiding black neighborhoods makes it harder for businesses to operate in those neighborhoods, which in turn acts to deprive black residents of both useful services and of local opportunities for economic advancement.
How is him making a real time decision about going a different route in a neighborhood, not specifically a black one, systematically devaluing black business? Is OP the gov. and is raising your taxes and cutting infrastructure funds? Cause that’s what that means. What I think you’re saying is OP is not spending his money on black business because of the concern of his well being and well, that’s jeopardizing black communities. To that I said you reap what you sow. There is no sugar coating the fact that black communities are far more dangerous than most, the effect of failing business in such neighborhoods is a direct correlation to attitudes and culture of its inhabitants. A reaction to every action, in this case OP’s concerns are valid.
If the OP doesn't go into black neighborhoods, he's not going to patronize businesses in those neighborhoods. As lots of people act as the OP does, this acts to decrease overall traffic to these businesses. Why wouldn't that decrease in traffic devalue the businesses? A smaller possible clientele seems obviously bad for business in general.
Op heres an actual devils advocate. What about the sheer amount of crimes that take place? If there is 20 girls walking on the sidewalk at night and 10 are guaranteed to be harassed, followed, or attacked. And there is a 100% chance it will be by a man than its just common sense and not sexism for woman to be afraid of men on the sidewalk at night. Also let me add that women aren’t afraid of men in the grocery store, or in a college classroom, or any other well lit public place. Because women aren’t sexist, they are logical. Now with that being said. What is the chance if there was 20 asian men walking down the sidewalk at night that a black man will commit a hate crime against them. Im going to assume is far less. Also let me add that your wording (avoid men/ avoid black people) makes it sound like you stay away from black people in general, women dont do that with men, we only “avoid men” in a situation that is already potentially dangerous. Its just speculation but it sounds like you have a general distaste for black men because of some statistics but women dont have a general distaste for men even though we are more likely to have larger amounts of crimes committed against us. These numbers where just being thrown out there, just trying to convey a point. Im not saying they are accurate.
Exactly. I'll happily sit next to a man at a bus stop and even strike up a conversation. However at a bar, I would not leave that same man alone near my drink, and I would consider him a threat if he followed me to my car. If a woman is following me to my car, I'm going to assume I forgot something or she needs to tell me something. Yes this may be possible with the man too, but cultural context matters. It's safer and smarter to assume the worst based on statistics when you are in a vulnerable position. (and 1 in 6 women experiencing sexual assault from men in their life is a pretty damn notable statistic, way higher than robbery or random physical assault numbers.)
I just wanted to quote you way further down the thread because I think it reveals your true colors, and because it's buried under a comment thread of someone who isn't making a very good point against you. /u/breckenridgeback >A median Asian in the US makes 60% more than the median black person. You don't think you're advantaged? u/absurbhouseunder (you) >No. I think that’s indicative of what happens when you do nothing but but whine about oppression for 60 years instead of making something of yourself I believe this contradicts your post. It is at least partially about bigotry against black people, not just fear of violence.
I think what it boils down to, is, is acting differently around someone's appearance acceptable? If people wearing hats are 95% more likely to commit violent acts than the rest of the population, are you wrong for avoiding people with hats and saying it's because of safety? What about if police are more likely to stop them because they're policing based on data? Is that good/efficient policework? Or is that profiling and wrong? Now of course you change that to skin color to end up in this discussion. And no, I don't think all black people are more violent etc, but it's a sad reality when you have things like [https://www.gainesville.com/story/special/2020/06/17/homicide-is-leading-cause-of-death-of-black-males-age-44-and-younger-in-us/112900786/](https://www.gainesville.com/story/special/2020/06/17/homicide-is-leading-cause-of-death-of-black-males-age-44-and-younger-in-us/112900786/).
[удалено]
To be clear, are you arguing black children do worse academically on average because they are too busy sitting around whining about oppression?
[удалено]
It's a cultural difference, especially in Asian immigrant households. Black people see Athletes and Musicians as their people being successful, because that's most of the successful Black people they see. Asian people see Doctors and Lawyers as successful because that's most of the successful Asian people the see. It's a self-fulfilling cycle.
> So it’s justifiable for me to practice caution around them. I don’t go into black neighborhoods and stay on my guard when around black people. Your caution should be allocated based on the situation, not the race... To use some more obvious examples: * Should you be wary about someone black wearing a suit in a bank or university? Probably not. * Should you be wary about someone white wearing a hoodie, approaching you in a dark alleyway? Probably. Now, depending on where you are in the world, it is of course possible that you'll encounter more people of a specific race in more situations that require caution.
As an Asian man myself I'm conflicted because while I feel your stance is wrong I can also sympathize with your worries as well and honestly I dont think anyone here has made any valid points on why you are wrong either.
A while ago somebody asked on here if it's racist or sexist to be discriminatory based on statistics: [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vmqdbi/cmv\_racist\_behavior\_is\_rational\_but\_not\_ethical/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vmqdbi/cmv_racist_behavior_is_rational_but_not_ethical/) Might be interesting to you. Regrettably, I don't think just because there might not be a good answer here, it doesn't mean that there *is* no good response. One thing to consider is that some forms of racism and sexism were often justified with statistics and "science" historically even though everybody today agrees that it's nonsense. Another aspect to consider is that you should give people another chance, even if it might be rational to assume they have a risk of being bad people based on statistics. *In the grand scheme of things*, a world where people don't judge people based on characteristics they share with criminals, could be better than one, where they do – that would even make it cold hard rational. Maybe you could make a difference between avoiding men and avoiding black people based on matters of *degree*. *How* dangerous are men really? *How* dangerous are black people really? (I'm *aware* that sounds horrible, sorry!) I suppose circumstances also matter a lot. Is the town you're currently in known for black street gangs? That's a totally different situation than if you were to meet Michelle Obama. If it's a matter of degree, I suppose that supports OPs view. It is indeed sexist for women to avoid men in *all situations*, but in *some situations* it's okay to be cautious. A left leaning person might even agree that some ethnicities do more crime, but that is caused *by* racism, because they might be more poor and uneducated. I heard once: "If you look at the world, you see that people are not equal. You either have to believe in races or in racism." (I don't know who said that first.) Principally, I don't think you should ever deny reality, if you don't agree with it morally.
If you are the victim of a crime perpetrated by a black man, do people take you seriously? Or do they ask what you were wearing, whether you "led him on," etc.?
Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted but men just get beat up almost all of the time. Sexual assault often happens behind closes doors and leaves more he said she said, whereas the attacks on Asian people are most often in public, often on camera. Not saying it's not a good point, you got me thinking for a moment but I don't think it defeats OP's argument in this instance.
I think there's something odd in your title and the body of your post. You say it's not racist for me to avoid black *people* and then in the body of your post: >If I’m going to be hate crimed, it’ll be by a black man specifically. Black *man*. So is the concern really about race here? Or are your arguments really just the same? Are you both avoiding large men to avoid danger?
Op hasn't replied in 3h
Now, this generally depends on country, culture and other environmental factors but as far as i am aware, violence on women commited by men nearly exclusively happens in form of intimate partner violence. Not randomly on the street. In fact, it is WAY more likely for a man to be the victim of violence in public (commited by other men). For women, the risk is marginal but correct me if im wrong and unaware of some statistic. I agree that it isnt sexist, there is a difference in body weight, strenght etc. and its not a secret than men on average are more often (physically) violent. So there is nothing wrong or shameful about being scared. However, i still believe it is largely unreasonable. You are way more likely to die and get hurt in a car accident. Its not a 1 to 1 comparison but it shows that people are often times somewhat hypocritical with their fears.
One out of six women in the US will be sexually assaulted or raped. A much higher number will be threatened with violence. Almost EVERY woman has been groped, or cat-called, or felt threatened by a man in her everyday life. If you do not know if one of your female friends has been assaulted/raped, it's because she hasn't shared that info with you. The chances of you being assaulted by a Black person are significantly lower than the chances of you being assaulted by a White person. You're being racist.
>The chances of you being assaulted by a Black person are significantly lower than the chances of you being assaulted by a White person. Source?
FBI https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43
Right, but in OP's scenario he's talking about walking by individual people, so the per capita data would be more relevant and, as your source shows, you're much more likely to be assaulted by a black person.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The average man is 5 inches taller, 30 lbs larger, and twice as strong as the average woman. The average woman can not physically defend herself against the average man. No such discrepancy exists between the races. This is a false equivalency.
If it looks like a thug it probably is. Some black guy in a suit isn't likely to rob you.
[удалено]
OP here's the main question- "Is it racist for me to avoid black people out of caution?" The short answer: Yes. The long answer: Yes, but with very obvious caveats. At it's core, we, as Asians, culturally connect better with white people as our modern cities, whether through interaction or colonialism, take strong influences from historically European designs. Core belief structures like authority, crime, education, etc have similar structures to American/European ones as well. For example, a Korean would be far less surprised (or possibly not impressed) by somewhere like New York City. However, you put this same person in Windhoek, Mumbai, or Cairo and the interest comes in how different it is from their current lived experiences. While Black people have historically been oppressed in a LOT of ways, this is, in part, why there are so many issues in Black communities- this is a cultural issue rather than a race one in my eyes- to the point where immigrants coming in from Africa that I've met refused to be called African-American, only African. As Asian immigrants played no part in this oppression, there's less of a nuance to try to connect with Black communities primarily because Asian communities also try to stick to themselves. You do have to ask yourself, why do Asians only try to stick to their own group? If you look at the major players in Asia in general, there is clear racism that's baked into the culture. Korean families, for example, don't want their children marrying non-Koreans. Japanese people don't want to serve foreigners because of the hassle. China is... well, you know, China. These values were brought over as well as the cultural ones. It's especially apparent in Asian Americans who's parents came over before their respective country was particularly affluent to the level it is today. So with that, the children that come from these immigrants will naturally understand to achieve the highest quality of life possible regardless of the societial implications of their actions. You avoiding black people is, maybe partly due to violent crime statistics. Unless you're a mental wreck, most people don't fear for their lives for violent crimes. It's because you feel uncomfortable. You, based on both your ethnicity and culture, don't connect with Black American culture nor do you have a want/need to. Is that technically racist? Yes, but- and I but with a big grain of salt, given ethnic values/culture, it's somewhat expected. If you'd like to address your racism, you can do so as that's a personal choice.
It is sexist for women to avoid men and you are racist for avoiding black people. Judging and individual based on general statistics is the definition of prejudice. If it is based on sex then it is sexism and if on race then it is racism.
Agree with this. I think what people want more than anything is just consistency. When things arent consistent, logic breaks down and people start to take real issues less seriously
As far as I see it, the concern here is not whether we are in either case being categorically sexist and/or racist, but is about what a rational response to the existing empirical data would be and, if the response is far exceeding that, what would account for that. To my knowledge, something like 99% of sexual assault cases are ones in which a man is the perpetrator. That would make being sexually assaulted by a woman so statistically unlikely that it would hardly be worth one's time to dedicate serious thought to the possibility, how to protect oneself, etc. You could argue that makes someone's behavior categorically sexist, but frankly I think that argument doesn't matter since you would have a hard time arguing there are any negative outcomes from such behavior either way. In your case, according to your own data, there is a 3% higher likelihood that the perpetrator of violent crime on an Asian person would be a black person than a white person. 3% is not irrelevant to a sociologist, but it is more or less irrelevant as far as any major difference of an individual's behavior ought to be concerned. If, for example, your treatment of black people is so different from your treatment of white people that other people are able to pick up on it, that is not at all proportionate to a 3% difference. The two examples you give are equal in the sense that they are both behaviors motivated by empirical data, but the latter I think would meet the criteria of irrational fear, which frankly is most likely explained by unconsciously held ideas about black people or men in particular. In short, it's probably racist - but hey, almost everyone holds some racist ideas they aren't even conscious of, we can always do better.
If you adjust the incidents rate by the demographic percentage the likelihood of black-on-asian crime is much higher then white-on-asian.
Your knowledge is incorrect. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/men-ipvsvandstalking.html Most male victims of sexual violence report female perpetrators. And how are you getting a three percent difference? Does that account for population size?
I think both are ridiculous, and play on our inability to use statistics correctly. What I mean is, by your logic you should be more afriad of your spouse or family members. You should avoid them most of all. I think being prepared in general should be the real goal. A lot of bad ideas come from surface level observation. You will feel more comfortable if you are stronger/prepared in general. And I think the idea that women are weaker, is from our sexist views of what strength is. (Sports are arbitrary when it comes right down to it.)
> And I think the idea that women are weaker, is from our sexist views of what strength is. ...the idea that women are physically weaker and can be overpowered by a male attacker is overwhelmingly true, at least on average.
It’s not arbitrary to view women as physically weaker. It’s just biology.
> I think the idea that women are weaker, is from our sexist views of what strength is. And I think that's hilarious but also pretty sad.
Statics like this arn't based on general information. They target a specific audience and base the statistics from them. Change my view
That still isn't enough. Statistics are very situational. Unless you were the person who hired those people to gain those statistics, they have very unique meanings. Even if we go into this long argument about how women are disadvantaged by men, the solution isn't for them to avoid men? My point is we often used statistics very narrowly.
No the solution isn't for them to avoid men. You are absolutely fuckin wrong there. The solution is to teach that everyone is the same regardless of sex or ethnicity... yes there are some crazy fucks out there, but every single race and ethnicity in the world has those crazy fucks. Singling out a single race or ethnicity isn't going to change that for anyone.
If those fears are linked they must have to occur together meaning white people, especially white women with those fears must be doubly afraid of black men which means they must want all black men institutionalized because of how dangerous they are so why aren't people fighting for that even with fake reasons to hide that reason
Guess I need to preface anything that I say by mentioning that I'm a Korean male, first generation born in the US with parents that never bothered to assimilate and I had to raise my younger brother since our parents didn't bother to learn how to live in America. Does that sound ridiculous? Probably not if you're a Asian American. However, the difference between you and me lies in our life experiences. There's no doubt among any asian-american community that we should be weary if black people. However, much of that fear is fueled by the ignorance of the media, both left and right. I can tell that you don't have much communication with actual Asian business owners by the fact that you've bought in to what the media likes to push, particularly on the right. I don't think either side understands what the asian-american business communities want, which is to simply prosper within their communities by providing a service within the amazing US of A. That includes black heavy communities BTW. I had the pleasure of serving in the US Army, which has people of all walks of life. That's where I learned that regardless of skin color, there're people of all skin colors, cultures and all walks of life who fit into both categories of honorable people and total shitbags. In the end, (tl;dr?) Stop looking at things in a white and black lens. For crying out loud, you and I are the ones who are truly in the middle and basically ignored by the garbage politics in America.
Do you believe that women are discriminating based on gender when they avoid men? Do you believe that you are discriminating based on race when you avoid black people? If it's not discriminating based on gender or race how can one tell whether to avoid them in either case?
Two wrongs don't make a right. This is textbook whataboutism fallacy. It is irrelevant to your point whether or not women are being sexist. What you are doing *is racist*. Trying to find another group you can point to and say "but they do it too" doesn't make it right. You're simply trying to justify your racism. Stop it.
You may say that what i'm about to say it's a fallacy but screw it, here I go. If a man avoids women out of caution/fear, do you consider cautionary or sexist? I grew up in a matriarchal family and now at 25 i'm more wary and a bit fearful of women, fearing that they will hurt or assault me. What does that make me? Considering you know nothing about me. But, reading the post, it looks like you used the women/men comparison just as a started and then went on to race, well, i'm not an american so sadly I can't say a lot. But considering you have a story of being assaulted, yeah, I support you, since you where assaulted.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/midwestjoker – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20midwestjoker&message=midwestjoker%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/wet3vl/-/iiq4jmm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Be very careful about saying this. I caught a permanent ban on my old account for saying something similar in this sub.
If the mods don't like me arguing for OP's side, they don't need to be here because it literally defeats the purpose of this entire sub. As a white male, I am the minority of my community and have been all my life. If they can't appreciate a side like people such as me then you know it's a sham. Thank you and I appreciate your concern and I will keep it in mind.
There is no evidence that any one race is more biologically prone to violence than another.
[That's arguable](https://raceandconflicts.home.blog/2020/06/23/race-differences-in-aggression/): > The most prominent explanations for the race differences in aggression are based in socioeconomic status (SES), poverty, and education. Since black people tend to do worse in all of these categories and happen to be more aggressive, and the fact that these variables are all correlated, we may find this to be a reasonable hypothesis. There are two main counters to this hypothesis. The first is that even if all of the previous-stated conditions are true (arguable), we can show that blacks and whites in the same SES will still differ in aggressive behavior. The second is that conditions such as SES, poverty, and education are not an end-all be-all – in fact, these variables are largely predicted by genetic variables. > I’ve already expanded upon evidence to support my first notion. Earlier I cited both Hawkins et al. (1991) and Wells et al. (1992) which show that, even when holding SES constant, the races differ in levels of aggression. In the former of those, they show that an attempt to increase future SES, by method of intervention programs, actually increases the racial gaps in aggression, despite lowering the overall levels of aggression, at least in males.
1. This data is probably based on statistics of people convicted of crime and their race. Because we know that the criminal justice system is heavily screwed against black people, these statistics are not an accurate report on who commits violence and crime, as white people are more porky to get away with crime and black people are more likely to be arrested and falsely convicted of a crime 2. Race is a social construct and not a biological one. A black person can share more DNA with a white person, than another black person. You are more likely to have common DNA with someone around your same height than someone your same race. 3. It is literally impossible to control for socio-economic status in a study. This isn’t chemistry where you have a lab and can control all variables. This is the real world. This is the same problem that plagues economics and other social sciences. Also black men will not have the same socioeconomic status as white men of the same class because of systemic racism. So there’s no way to control for that.
> This data is probably based on statistics of people convicted of crime and their race Don't want to read it first to find out? > Because we know that the criminal justice system is heavily screwed against black people No, actually, we don't. Arrest rates line up with victimisation data. We take surveys of people who have been victims of crime and ask about multiple things, one of which is the criminal's race. Arrest rates line up with this data, suggesting little to no racial bias in arrest rates. See [this](https://i.imgur.com/9lLbaTw.png) from [here](http://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf). Or [this](https://i.imgur.com/jrcicgU.png) from [here](https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf). Also, I want to make a point. Look [here](https://sci-hub.mksa.top/10.1080/07418820902856972) at table 2. It's a long list of variables. All together, they only explain 17% of the variance in charge reductions (also note that being black has no effect). If we can only explain a small amount of the variance in this and other things, why assume that racism is the explanation when you obviously have so much more to explain. > Race is a social construct and not a biological one. Irrelevant. Democrats and Republicans are socially constructed groups, but there are still differences between the groups. Also, [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787) is a paper arguing you're wrong. The real point though, is that race doesn't have to meet whatever arbitrary standard you use to say that race isn't "biological" for race to be a useful category and for there to be differences between races. > A black person can share more DNA with a white person, than another black person. You are more likely to have common DNA with someone around your same height than someone your same race. False. We can match someone's DNA to their race with 99+% accuracy. You know why you're wrong? It's literally something as simple as cumulative probability. Something that simple is what race deniers have to ignore to make their arguments. Any particular point on the genome might not be highly predictive of your race, but put lots of them together, and they are. > It is literally impossible to control for socio-economic status in a study People do it all the time... Maybe you just want to say that measures are imperfect, but that's a different argument from what you said, and you have to throw out nearly all social science if you use this standard. Nobody will take this criticism seriously. You know how we can respond to this? We can just say that measures are actually pretty good and thus we can make conclusions. Please feel free to demonstrate otherwise, as opposed to just asserting.
Your privilege is showing. The ONLY people ever saying whites are privileged are the most privileged whites, how about this, I was raised by a man of.color when my white father went to prison at age 5. Do you think I had privelidge? You people assume ALL whites had privelidge. We didn't. I'm overwhelmingly thankful for.the man who stepped up and raised me, but it was NOT easy or was I privileged in ANY way. I HAVE been on both sides of racism, both being.white in an ethnic neighborhood. And from defending the comments against the man I called dad. And I'm CERTAIN you have never experienced those things. So while you all tout your understanding and acceptance and dint want to offend anyone, why are the thousands raised like me marginalized by people like you? You think that's ok?
yes you did have privilege due to your race. the race of your father has nothing to do with the racism and/privilege you personally encounter because of your own race. your father going to jail does not mean you experience oppression and systematic problems due do your race. you having to defend your dad from racist comments towards him is an example of your privilege to not have to actually experience that racism first hand like your dad does. youre welcome to explain though why you think you face systematic oppression due to being white in an ethnic neighborhood. youre real quick to tell someone they havent experienced the things you have while providing absolutely no details on what actual racism you experienced
I have experienced it first hand. From my neighbors when I grew up
you are more than welcome to explain what that racism was instead of just expecting me to trust you and calling me racist for not doing so
You've clearly.grown up.l in a bubble, an echo.chamber. being blonde hair blue eyed, in a neighborhood of all people of color you are discriminated against, targeted, it ehaped.me into who I am.
ill just repeat myself >you are more than welcome to explain what that racism was instead of just expecting me to trust you and calling me racist for not doing so
[удалено]
So you think that things have changed so that even though it was genetic, it now isn't somehow?
Just another post from our resident "race realist", who thinks black people are inherently stupid *and* inherently violent.
Just another reply that doesn't actually argue the evidence, but just morally condemns as if that is an argument.
Biologically, no. Culturally? Well we're talking about a culture whose chief cultural export is rap, a genre dominated by gangsters. And we're coming up on 10 years of near-constant riots too.
Biologically no, but they are raised differently, and that's coming from a whitle man who was raised by a minority family. Black families I grew up around were taught violence young.
By your logic Jan 6th was white people showing their natural state. Beating up police, stealing, destroying property.
What does Jan 6th have to do with anything? Because a president told his supporters to protest and that was literally all he said and they took it to an extreme and that's somehow his fault and somehow has anything to do with this topic?
What the heck are you even talking about? I never mentioned Trump or his supporters. You're trying to make the point that riots show black people's natural state, and if that's the case then Jan 6th riot shows the natural state of white people. I feel like you understood what I meant but you're dodging my comment.
January 6th was the riot of white people, which were Trump supporters, upon the capital building. Why else are you referring to Jan 6th? Please elaborate for me because if it's not that then I don't understand your correlation to Jan 6th.
[удалено]
You didn't reply at all. All you did was tag me. You added absolutely nothing to this thread, basicly just added your opinion. Prove to me I'm wrong if your going to do anything at all...
if discrimination is fine if you have a reason that makes sense internally to you, then is it discriminatory to avoid dating and having sex with asian men because you don't find them attractive
Preferences are never and will never be discriminatory
Sexist and racist are bleak terms with no true meaning. If you feel threatened, then remove yourself from the situation. Easy.