[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.