I understand you're only using the statistics to make a point, and I'm explaining that when you look at the specific, actual information that is being revealed, the difference is clear. You seem determined to only look at the aesthetics of using statistics.
And I very easily dismissed the one that I could read. I'm not going to translate everything you send me so I can play whackamole with it, especially when we agree on the fact that the racists are wrong to use these studies. Unless we don't, in which case the fact you have these in your back pocket ready to go really does say something about you, doesn't it?
the end result, these people (men, some immigrant groups etc) are cause of the violence
Oh no! That sounds like you just made a blanket statement that men and immigrants are violent. That's actually something I've never done, unless you can quote me saying that.
You keep talking about these "blanket statements". Which ones? Quote them please. I would like to know what I have said that has got you on this tear about racism and immigration and why it's unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
I’m explaining that when you look at the specific, actual information that is being revealed, the difference is clear.
It doesn't seem clear to me. What's the actual difference of men having a higher rate of violence towards women and one of those immigrant groups having having higher rate of sexual violence towards women? Both are real, actual things that are concerning for women, but what makes it okay to be prejudiced towards one group as perpetrators but not the another? That's something I don't understand.
I very easily dismissed the one that I could read
Not at all. You saw the word "suspect" and thought it can be dismissed on that basis alone without showing anything for conviction rates. It's an inordinately high rate of suspects and there's an inordinately high rate of those convicted.
I mean, you sure dismissed it I guess, but rather with an argument that doesn't hold much water at all. As the actual statistics show.
Oh no! That sounds like you just made a blanket statement that men and immigrants are violent. That’s actually something I’ve never done, unless you can quote me saying that.
It's sorta the whole basis of the discussion, that the behaviour and rhetoric employed here is justified because it is backed up by statistics. I don't think so. You seem to think so, at least in some cases.
You keep talking about “blanket statements”. Can you find the blanket statements I’ve made, please? You keep talking about these “blanket statements”. Which ones? Quote them please. I would like to know what I have said that has got you on this tear about racism and immigration and why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
If you don't feel like this is one then I'm not sure what it is trying to say:
"Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?"
"The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?”"
why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
I don't think it's unfair, I think labeling a whole group is.
You said this:
I’m saying I don’t think it would be fair to call all men, in a blanket statement way, violent
I said this:
“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”
“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””
Now, if you can't tell the difference here, if you really think I was making a blanket statement that all men are violent, I cannot help you.
You are completely wrong to call those blanket statements. If you're curious to understand what I mean, then I will explain, but you need to say that you are curious to understand me. So far I have seen nothing but pettifoggery. I will not translate that word.
Sounds like you cannot help me since it all sounds like prejudiced behaviour towards a group with statistics being used to justify it.
If you’re curious to understand what I mean, then I will explain, but you need to say that you are curious to understand me.
I mean better late than never. I would've expected that to have been the first thing to have been said here, but instead the whole thing got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics.
Sounds like you cannot help me since it all sounds like prejudiced behaviour towards a group with statistics being used to justify it.
Oh, what happened to "blanket statements"? Sounds like you've walked that back rather a long way to something a lot more vaguely characterised without any specific things you can point to. Once again you've fallen back on the aesthetics.
I mean better late than never. I would’ve expected that to have been the first thing to have been said here, but instead the whole thing got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics.
So are you or are you not curious to understand what I am saying? I need to hear you say it before I waste another moment on this.
Oh, what happened to “blanket statements”? Sounds like you’ve walked that back rather a long way to something a lot more vaguely characterised without any specific things you can point to. Once again you’ve fallen back on the aesthetics.
I don't honestly understand what you mean with this. Unless you mean you edited your comments, the blanket statements, the discussion, it's still there? Are you saying you changed the comments..? Because while good, it sure is going to make it confusing to follow the whole thing.
So are you or are you not curious to understand what I am saying? I need to hear you say it before I waste another moment on this.
I'm saying yes I am curious and that you should've started with that. Instead we got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics, that didn't go anywhere.
Since you said you are curious to understand me, I will extend one more attempt to help you understand. If you don't work with me, I will stop.
(Edit: I feel I should add that the lone downvotes on your comments aren't from me. I know you're not downvoting me at this point so I'm not returning them. I don't want the fact you were downvoted to make you more defensive against me. Also, I haven't deleted any statements after the fact.)
Now, since you said "you should've started with that", I feel like I need to explain that I have been saying exactly what I mean this entire time. There is no hidden message behind the words that I am about to reveal to you. I simply believe that there must be a misunderstanding here.
You tell me that these sentences are "blanket statements":
“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”
“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””
Now, it's not clear to me why you believe this, since at no point have I said that "all men" are anything. If you believe these are blanket statements, then I don't know how to help you understand me unless you explain in detail what you believe these sentences mean.
I want you to paraphrase the messages you see (edit: in these two sentences that you specifically named, not in everything, I want to stay focused here), in your own words, so that I can understand what you think I was saying, so that I can explain whether or not I agree.
This appears to be a foundational issue for you, since when I asked what I said that offended you, you named these statements. So, if there's any hope of reaching an understanding, this is where it starts.
I understand you're only using the statistics to make a point, and I'm explaining that when you look at the specific, actual information that is being revealed, the difference is clear. You seem determined to only look at the aesthetics of using statistics.
And I very easily dismissed the one that I could read. I'm not going to translate everything you send me so I can play whackamole with it, especially when we agree on the fact that the racists are wrong to use these studies. Unless we don't, in which case the fact you have these in your back pocket ready to go really does say something about you, doesn't it?
Oh no! That sounds like you just made a blanket statement that men and immigrants are violent. That's actually something I've never done, unless you can quote me saying that.
You keep talking about these "blanket statements". Which ones? Quote them please. I would like to know what I have said that has got you on this tear about racism and immigration and why it's unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.
It doesn't seem clear to me. What's the actual difference of men having a higher rate of violence towards women and one of those immigrant groups having having higher rate of sexual violence towards women? Both are real, actual things that are concerning for women, but what makes it okay to be prejudiced towards one group as perpetrators but not the another? That's something I don't understand.
Not at all. You saw the word "suspect" and thought it can be dismissed on that basis alone without showing anything for conviction rates. It's an inordinately high rate of suspects and there's an inordinately high rate of those convicted.
I mean, you sure dismissed it I guess, but rather with an argument that doesn't hold much water at all. As the actual statistics show.
It's sorta the whole basis of the discussion, that the behaviour and rhetoric employed here is justified because it is backed up by statistics. I don't think so. You seem to think so, at least in some cases.
If you don't feel like this is one then I'm not sure what it is trying to say:
"Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?"
"The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?”"
I don't think it's unfair, I think labeling a whole group is.
You said this:
I said this:
Now, if you can't tell the difference here, if you really think I was making a blanket statement that all men are violent, I cannot help you.
You are completely wrong to call those blanket statements. If you're curious to understand what I mean, then I will explain, but you need to say that you are curious to understand me. So far I have seen nothing but pettifoggery. I will not translate that word.
Sounds like you cannot help me since it all sounds like prejudiced behaviour towards a group with statistics being used to justify it.
I mean better late than never. I would've expected that to have been the first thing to have been said here, but instead the whole thing got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics.
Oh, what happened to "blanket statements"? Sounds like you've walked that back rather a long way to something a lot more vaguely characterised without any specific things you can point to. Once again you've fallen back on the aesthetics.
So are you or are you not curious to understand what I am saying? I need to hear you say it before I waste another moment on this.
I don't honestly understand what you mean with this. Unless you mean you edited your comments, the blanket statements, the discussion, it's still there? Are you saying you changed the comments..? Because while good, it sure is going to make it confusing to follow the whole thing.
I'm saying yes I am curious and that you should've started with that. Instead we got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics, that didn't go anywhere.
Since you said you are curious to understand me, I will extend one more attempt to help you understand. If you don't work with me, I will stop.
(Edit: I feel I should add that the lone downvotes on your comments aren't from me. I know you're not downvoting me at this point so I'm not returning them. I don't want the fact you were downvoted to make you more defensive against me. Also, I haven't deleted any statements after the fact.)
Now, since you said "you should've started with that", I feel like I need to explain that I have been saying exactly what I mean this entire time. There is no hidden message behind the words that I am about to reveal to you. I simply believe that there must be a misunderstanding here.
You tell me that these sentences are "blanket statements":
Now, it's not clear to me why you believe this, since at no point have I said that "all men" are anything. If you believe these are blanket statements, then I don't know how to help you understand me unless you explain in detail what you believe these sentences mean.
I want you to paraphrase the messages you see (edit: in these two sentences that you specifically named, not in everything, I want to stay focused here), in your own words, so that I can understand what you think I was saying, so that I can explain whether or not I agree.
This appears to be a foundational issue for you, since when I asked what I said that offended you, you named these statements. So, if there's any hope of reaching an understanding, this is where it starts.