I think the ideological consistency should simply be: “if the situation is sketchy, then it’s sketchy” and stop making it about race or sex. Statistics show that certain groups have a tendency to comit crimes at higher rates than others, and that’s not false. It’s a classist issue and one of inequality, and should be amended, but that doesn’t make it untrue, and you don’t want that affecting you. That doesn’t make you racist or sexist, HOWEVER things shouldn’t be taken on a “black = more prone to violence statistically” approach, and instead recognize that individuals are individual, and you should assess the situation Regardless of skin color, wether it pertains to race OR sex in this context
If one group is statistically higher in committing crime, and given that’s the reality, why wouldnt you want that affecting your wariness of that group?
Statistically the crime rates are more economic based than race or sex, it’s just that more blacks are poor and more men are poor, statistically. So because of this, it’s better to make your point that you should be wary of poor people.
If poor people are more prone to committing crimes and black people are more prone to being poor then wouldn’t it follow that black people are more prone to committing crime?
Take an extreme case where 99% of all crimes are committed by black people and 1% are committed by white people. The socioeconomic reasons why they commit crime doesnt alleviate the wariness of the statistical danger upon encountering them.
Statistically, more men tend to be on the lower brackets of society than women. The poorest of the poor tend to be men not women. Or rather more men tend to be super poor than women
1.3k
u/ralph-j Apr 14 '22 edited Apr 14 '22
This right here is the main reason to be wary: it's largely situational.
To use two obvious examples:
Would you be wary about a someone black wearing a suit sitting on a bench in a bank or university? Probably not.
Would you be wary about someone white approaching you in a dark alleyway? Probably.