• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 days ago

    “the overwhelming majority of these m&ms are not poisonous.”

    mmm sounds delicious

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        no, I made it up because it’s an easy analogy. but my argument is still different on two fronts.

        first, the claim is absolute when it should be comparative. documented immigrants commit less crime than citizens. undocumented immigrants even less than them.

        https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117

        men on the other hand commit crime in ridiculously higher rates than women, and even disregarding that, men commit more serious crimes than women. technically more than bears too.

        second, my argument isn’t about opposing men, so it’s not even comparable to the opposing immigration argument. it’s about the fact that men pose a real threat and maybe it’s appropriate to take action to address that rather than get defensive about it.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            I didn’t say I invented it. I said I made it up. it’s not that wild of an analogy to be impossible to come up with it independently. i was thinking of grains and then remembered an old reddit post about putting skittles in an m&ms bowl.

            wow they probably stole that too, since it’s such a crazy original idea that no two people can think of it.

            again, “FBI crime stats but for men” is not a good critique because again, it’s not comparable to black people. unless you think the police unfairly favor immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants. women do get more lenient sentences but that wasn’t my argument.

            if you have any evidence that women commit as many and as serious crimes as men please share. or if you think men are historically oppressed and financially disadvantaged as context to their crime stats, I’d like to hear that.

            pointing at vague similarities to other arguments when they are nothing like each other won’t cut it.

            • Aqarius@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 days ago

              I didn’t say “invented” either, I said “made up” - I used the exact same wording you did. Don’t put words in my mouth, it’s unhygienic. And I would say that of all the foods to pick for the analogy, going straight for M&Ms in particular is, shall we say, telling.

              “FBI crime stats” is, in fact a good critique. If we accept bigotry against immigrants is unjustified because their crime stats are low, logically, we are forced to accept that if they were high, bigotry would be justified, which is the “FBI stats” argument. Now, I realize I might be on the fringe here, but I would like to take the stance that bigotry is inherently unjustified, regardless of what stats someone can dig up. Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter. Either we agree that a person, an actual, living, breathing, human being with feelings, hopes, and dreams, can be pre-judged based their birth (prejudice: prae- “before” + iūdicium “judgment”) , or they can’t. And I am of the radical, extremist stance that prejudice is wrong, inherently.

              And what the fuck do bears have to do with any of this?

              • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                8 days ago

                You are kinda straw-manning their argument. They never implied bigotry against men (or anyone for that matter) is justified. They implied that men as a demographic commit crimes at a higher than average rate, enough so to make it an outlier, and that the underlying issues should be addressed to reduce that.

                Your attempt to shift their argument to one of bigotry is just trying to shutdown the conversation. Men really do commit crimes at a higher rate, it’s not bigotry to acknowledge that. It would be bigotry to imply there was something inherent to being a man that made a person commit crimes. But wanting to understand the data and help isn’t bigotry, it’s compassion.

                Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter.

                Given that, crime stats, historical oppression, and financial disadvantage do in fact matter to putting context to crime rates. Would you be surprised to learn that areas with higher poverty rates have higher rates of crime? Would you accuse me of bigotry against the poor for saying that providing food, money, housing, education, and resources to those groups would reduce the crime rate? What if the impoverished area was comprised of immigrants? Am I bigoted for wanting to alleviate the situation that drives people to commit crimes, just because the people who need help are a minority group? Obviously not, bigotry is defined by thinking the problem is inherent to a group. It has nothing to do with acknowledging a problem and wanting to help everyone involved.

                Now, with all that in mind, if men are committing crimes (especially violent crimes) at a much higher rate than the general population, is it bigotry to say we should consider what we can do to reduce the crime rate in that demographic?

                edit: Here is something of a related situation to bring context. There are significantly less women in the tech industry. Is it bigotry to say that there is nothing inherent in being a woman that would make a person less capable to work in tech, so there is likely some alternative (likely societal) reason for this discrepancy? Is it bigotry for someone to try and help women get interested in tech and break into the industry?

                • Aqarius@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  I’m not strawmanning anything, the M&M argument itself is a justification for bigotry. It’s not shutting down the conversation, that is the conversation being had. The M&M argument isn’t about helping people, it’s a justification for prejudice and is to be rejected out of hand regardless of what demographic it’s targeting or what justification it tenders, because human beings aren’t fungible commodities. Read the articles I linked. Crime stats do not need context, because they do not matter at all.

                  How do you respond to M&Ming Japanese-American internment? After all, not all of them are traitors, but one poison M&M… And in response, do you say “well, if you look at the data, the average Japanese-American was actually…”? No, you reject the argument out of hand, because people are innocent until proven guilty. How do you respond to M&Ming vagrancy? Do you dig up data on shelters and talk about mental health? No, you reject the premise, because freedom shouldn’t be contingent on property ownership. How about migrants? Do you waste time proving that actually they’re all nice people who are worthy of help? No, you reject the argument, because people in need should be helped.

                  Incidentally, inherentness is also irrelevant. The M&M argument doesn’t claim poison is inherent to M&Ms. You can just as easily make the argument that you know full well that …m e n… aren’t inherently violent, it’s just that the crime stats very clearly show that they, as a demographic, have certain tendencies, and while you sympathize with them, and would like nothing more to help them overcome the circumstances, probably cultural, that are surely to blame for them being that way, the data is what it is, and you just don’t feel comfortable working/socializing/sharing an elevator/being in the same bar/seeing them in the neighborhood, and, I mean, for all they complain, the back of the bus is still on the same bus so I don’t get…

                  I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.

                  • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 days ago

                    And now you have strawmanned my argument… I get that you have heard an argument using M&Ms to justify widespread harm to targeted groups, and see Pyre’s use of it as a sort of dog whistle. And who knows, I do believe you are attaching a whole truckload of intent that they nor I ever suggested, but maybe it is a secret play to take away the rights of men. But seeing as you had to jump to hyperbolic attacks on people’s rights to find a way to imply I’m a bigot, I’m thinking it’s also possible that you are just a big fan of strawmanning people.

                    All of my suggestions were looking at statistics and seeing how we could improve the lives of all involved.

                    What do you do about internment camps? Shut that shit down, there is no place for collective punishment in a humane society.

                    What do you do about vagrancy? Provide safe spaces to sleep in, offer free food, and free health care (preferably a “right to housing as well”).

                    What do you do about the statistical discrepancy that men commit crimes at a higher rate? Invest in schools, provide positive role models, investigate the societal norms that may be affecting men’s “sense of self” negatively and try to counter balance it. (The list goes on, but you should at least get my point)

                    But you don’t just ignore statistics, after all data isn’t bigoted, people are. So you do your best to use stats and data to point to underlying causes and try to improve the situation for everyone to the greatest extent possible.

                    And, to bring this back to its original point, you also use data and stats to make educated decisions about your safety. If you go to an area with high crime rates, it’s not bigoted to carry and show less valuables. If you go to a city where cars get broken into a lot, it’s not bigoted to not keep valuables on the car. And if you are a woman who has a 14.8% chance of being a victim of rape in their lifetime, it’s not bigoted to not feel safe alone with men.

                    But you did make one very good point.

                    I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.

                    And I think you should take your own advice here. Because your biases have you so up in arms about this conversation, that you found a way to get from “maybe we examine why men commit a higher rate of crimes and see if we can help them so they don’t have or want to anymore” to “men belong at the back of the bus!”. And that’s… not a healthy mindset.

    • Azzu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Idk, women also do dumb violent shit, guess everyone should avoid everybody? Since some humans, regardless of their background, are toxic?

      Life is risk. Not taking any risk is choosing not to live. It’s relatively easy to figure out who’s a shithead, of course you should be wary of people, but everyone has to filter out other shitty people constantly, it’s not suddenly some new thing because Trumpers exist.

    • spacecadet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      9 days ago

      They one poisonous m&m in the factory is better than this chainsaw will to your face off, but at least you were safe from potentially being poisoned