[tomlockwood]

> The relevant biological differences between sexes are acknowledged and accepted.

Except if they were accepted in the way racists wanted race to be accepted, we'd crack down hard on freedom of movement for men.

A consistent racist would want us to pull our head out of the sand and more rigorously police the violent criminals that are, almost always men.

The data on the outsized violence of men is much more consistent, and dramatic, than the violence of any "ancestral genetic group".

[neurobama]

>Except if they were accepted in the way racists wanted race to be accepted, we'd crack down hard on freedom of movement for men.

Bananas. Where do you find this stuff?

>A consistent racist would want us to pull our head out of the sand and more rigorously police the violent criminals that are, almost always men.

We already police men way more than women, what's your point?

>The data on the outsized violence of men is much more consistent, and dramatic, than the violence of any "ancestral genetic group".

Read the last part again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35943243

[tomlockwood]

The reality is, if we were using demographic factors to prevent immigrants who cause violence from coming into a country, there's a few that are much more predictive than race.

First, we'd ban all men.

Second, we'd ban everyone under the age of 30. Maybe everyone under 50 if we were feeling really fascist.

With these two evidence based restrictions, we'd effectively eliminate violent crime perpetrated by immigrants. That's the stark reality, and its so funny to see racists try to avoid these points.

> We already police men way more than women, what's your point?

We would need to put more police in places where men congregate to be truly consistent - like software companies. The de-policing of men's places of work like these, may be putting us at risk, after all.

I'm just being realistic.

[neurobama]

I could say that no one has seriously proposed "eliminating ALL violent crime perpetrated by immigrants," and you're using this absurd strawman as some sort of shield to avoid discussing race, and that people generally accept other groups who commit violent crime at similar rates to their own, and it's just one group in the US in particular who falls way outside the bell curve (per link theme)... but it's clear you aren't here for earnest or honest discussion, so I'm out.

[tomlockwood]

Oh no you've got me all wrong! I love discussing race, and in particular how made up the concept of whiteness is. It's just most racists don't like to have that discussion, they'd rather try to throw stats around to justify more policing, but the stats don't lie - it'd be by far more effective to focus on and police men of all persuasions, rather than focussing on different made up race categories.

[neurobama]

"Made-up race categories" are visible to the naked eye, to principal-component analysis of alleles, to measures of genetic distance, to surveys of visible and invisible traits, to even the smallest child who's only begun to speak.

What was the Human Genome Project for? Your mockery and denial, I guess. Why have scientists spent lifetimes improving DNA sequencing technologies, carefully gathering data, and drawing conclusion based on the evidence? So you could laugh it all off, I suppose.

Your refusal to acknowledge reality fails to budge reality. The natural world doesn't care about race or sex solipsism. Policy founded on reality-denial will always eventually fail and be replaced. Whether it fails hard or soft and what is allowed to replace it is the question of our time in America.

[tomlockwood]

> "Made-up race categories" are visible to the naked eye, to principal-component analysis of alleles, to measures of genetic distance, to surveys of visible and invisible traits, to even the smallest child who's only begun to speak.

Initial definitions of white, didn't include Scottish and Irish people.