Who's doing the raping?

[Tailsteak]

So a certain American businessman and politician (whom I shall refrain from naming here, because speaking his name would give him power) recently made the news by claiming that illegal Mexican immigrants were committing rape. He went on to assert that this was a good reason to crack down on illegal immigration and to limit legal immigration from Mexico - discriminating against the Mexican nationality was okay, because of the correlation - Mexicans are more likely to commit sexual assault, therefore by keeping them out of America, there would be fewer instances of sexual assault.

I'm not certain if the implication was that by keeping these Mexicans in Mexico the rapes would be prevented or simply confined to another country, but regardless, his repeated question was "who's doing the raping?".

Of course, once the statistics were analyzed, it turns out that Latinos (illegally immigrating or otherwise) are not statistically more likely to rape than any other ethnicity. There is no correlation there.

But I do have an answer to this politician's question. There is a demographic more likely than others to commit sexual assault. The correlation in the statistics is undeniable. And, to be ideologically consistent, if a certain demographic is more likely than another to rape or commit other violent crimes, we should discourage or possibly even completely prevent them from immigrating, right?

And while we're at it, if a certain demographic is more likely than another to commit mass shooting sprees in schools or theaters or shopping malls, they should be discouraged or possibly completely prevented from purchasing and owning handguns and semi-automatic weapons, right?

And if a certain demographic is more likely than another to abuse their power as police officers, to use excessive force, then perhaps they should be discouraged or possibly completely prevented from becoming cops in the first place, right?

And if a certain demographic is more likely than another to hijack and blow up an airplane, that demographic should be subjected to greater scrutiny at airport security, or possibly prevented from flying altogether, right?

So I look forward to conservative politicians of all sorts coming out in favour of men being prevented from immigrating, in favour of men being unable to purchase or own guns, in favour of men not becoming police officers, and in favour of men being subjected to extra security screenings at the airports.

... I mean, that would just make sense, wouldn't it?

[yomikoma]

As a male, this only seems fair.

[Nepene]

http://fusion.net/story/17321/is-rape-t ... can-dream/

This is the story he cited as his source, in that mexican female immigrants are raped at an 80% rape.

Of course, if immigration is a shady business and that leads to mexican women being raped that doesn't cry out to me "Make immigration even more shady!" but anyway, one demographic being more likely to do something doesn't suggest an intervention. If 80% of men committed sexual assault that would be a worrying issue, but, they don't.

[Merle]

He's a poor businessman, a blowhard and an all-around idiot.

How can you tell if <NAME REDACTED> is lying? He's got his mouth open.

[Pneumonica]

Since the comparison I'm using for REDACTED isn't a common subject of searching or even a big deal anymore, I would point out that REDACTED's business strategy is often a restatement of T. Boone Pickens'. Essentially, he buys companies, drains them, and leaves them to collapse (screw the shareholders). It's technically illegal, but it's also insidiously difficult to prosecute.

REDACTED emits the same sort of reality distortion field that a certain now-deceased corporate figure once emitted, though REDACTED's RDF is far less comprehensive or convincing. The fact is, it convinces him. He's caught in a subjective world that inverts the usual progression of ethical subjectivism - in essence, rather than saying that the statement that a thing is wrong is the statement that the speaker disapproves of it, REDACTED believes that approval or disapproval is the definition of morality/immorality. Put it another way, if he believes it, it must be true. REDACTED is that frightening breed of human being who needs only his own voice to say a thing once in order to produce an availability cascade.

If REDACTED wants to be the head of a nation, I fear for that nation.

[snowyowl]

What's this discussion about? Are we looking for people who agree with <REDACTED>'s views so we can debate them? We'll be looking for a long time unless any Conservative American politicians read Leftover Soup.

[Deepbluediver]

I'm always reluctant to base policy on broad categories of race, gender, nationality, culture, or other similar traits. That can get really messy really fast.

I've read that Israel already does something like this with regards to the security screenings at it's airports. They screen people based on the characteristics found in the majority of terrorists who attack Israel, and (again based on what I've read) it seems to work pretty well. In America, by contrast, everyone is treated equally which is why it takes 3 hours to get through security, you'll probably lose one shoe, and both a 95-year old grandmother and 3-year old toddler are both equally likely to be felt up by a minimum-wage security-guard-reject as potential suicide bombers.

The realist and the idealist in me are in a constant fight over which is better.

What's this discussion about? Are we looking for people who agree with <REDACTED>'s views so we can debate them? We'll be looking for a long time unless any Conservative American politicians read Leftover Soup.

I don't normally think of myself as "conservative" but most people would probably call my political views right-wing.
To be clear though- I don't share Donald Trump's views on immigration.

And I refuse to participate in this "don't name the person we all know who I'm talking about hint hint wink wink" bullshit. If there's a problem, it should be confronted head-on.

[crayzz]

What's this discussion about? Are we looking for people who agree with <REDACTED>'s views so we can debate them? We'll be looking for a long time unless any Conservative American politicians read Leftover Soup.

I think Tailsteak is just presenting a reductio ad absurdum. Going by the principles behind the argument, in reality we'd be forced to be stricter on male behaviour.

The implication, at least to me, is that since no one actually advocates these ideas, no one is actually holds those principles: they are only promoted in order to attack whatever demographic they happen to dislike at the time. The proposed policy is racist in the simplest sense, rather than just having a disparate impact on certain races.

[Horizon]

I'm just gonna leave this here...

[Deepbluediver]

The implication, at least to me, is that since no one actually advocates these ideas, no one is actually holds those principles: they are only promoted in order to attack whatever demographic they happen to dislike at the time. The proposed policy is racist in the simplest sense, rather than just having a disparate impact on certain races.

In my experience, if you go to far enough extremes in opposing political views the actions they take tend to loop back around and seem to start matching up again. Donald Trump believes Mexicans are violent and we shouldn't let them in the country. The left believes that people are violent and private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
The latter belief may be less discriminatory, but it's also more restrictive.