Here's a nice overall view, again, see chart 4, which shows men are more likely to be victims of violent crime OVERALL: http://nortonbooks.typepad.com...
FYI - since Geekoid correctly pointed out my referenced data didn't include homicide, please see table 4 here which shows men are homicide victims at about 4 times the rate of women: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
"digsbo already cited the relevant reference showing that men have more to fear from others than women do"
no he didn't. He doesn't understand the context and is using a specific type of crime as all crime, it is not.
For example, the paper does not include homicide.
Ok fine, since you keep cherry picking your data with "intimate partners" or "domestic abuse", here's the data for homicide, and it is overwhelmingly showing that men are many times (almost 4X) more likely to be homicide victims:
He didn't limit his statement to intimate partners. See other stats in this thread, especially table 7 in my earlier comment, that shows men are overall 50% more likely, more or less, to be victims of violent crime.
Not sure whether you are trying to cherry pick the data or just misunderstood, but you might want to tone it down, because as I read it, you're wrong in this.
Please see my post above - about "table 7", in the USA, men are at about a 50% higher risk of being the victims of violent crime. Generally this conversation was assumed to be USA-centric, but I could easily see where a different country has different results.
Might have been a misunderstanding of this one saying 38% of rape victims are male, which is interesting, but different, from the perpetrator stats he posted:
http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/...
Now you're getting somewhere. I've never seen inappropriate or aggressive behavior towards women in any of the geek/nerd groups I've been in. In fact, I'd say most of them would get strong marks for showing full respect for women. That said, I am certain that reports of specific incidents and groups having a pattern of behavior are real. I recall one of the security conventions had a problem, which somehow didn't surprise me, knowing that's a sub-group of geekdom with its own dynamic.
Generally speaking, I have found the bigger problems tend to go with the more macho types though. Yes, occasionally you hear of a problem with a school group other than a sports team, but in the vast majority of cases, groups of men who are aggressive towards women are groups of men who are GENERALLY aggressive. Drug gangs, low grade thugs, etc., are all far worse, unquestionably, than "geeks".
It really sounds to me like there is a concerted effort to apply labels and groupings to what is really just an age old problem.
Now, on the other hand, can we address the reality that men are FAR more likely than women to be victims of violence, physical intimidation, violent crime, and other physical threats such as military hazards and other job-related physical danger?
The problem here is not that anyone is against ending violence against women. It's that we have blown what is effectively a rare occurrence (dude going nuts) being confused with a non-existent pattern of nerd rage, all being whipped into a social media shitstorm to make PC points in the press.
My apologies for not using a bad car analogy. But cancer...cancer takes energy from the host organism to overgrow, aggressively, until the host dies. The model of highly budgeted out-of-control government agencies fits that model well. AIDS is an infectious disease that weakens the host slowly enough to spread. I don't see how that fits in this case.
I'd liken this to the difference between the immune system and a cancer.
There are legitimate activities undertaken by the FBI daily. Such examples as child porn, kidnapping, and other Federal law enforcement duties. I think of these as being more like the immune system.
There are other activities the FBI engages in like entrapment of mentally deficient individuals into terror "plots" where they convince some nearly retarded guy that he's got a truck full of explosives, and to drive them into a sensitive target. This is more like cancer.
Now where there are good and bad aspects to what the FBI does, it's tough to understand in what way the NSA or CIA are doing anything that's healthy for the nation. Seems mostly like stuff to justify their own existence (CIA creates enemies by interfering in other countries' government, NSA makes enemies by violating other countries' citizens' privacy, both groups then use blowback to justify their budget/unconstitutional actions).
This has repeatedly been shown to be impossible. People who continue to argue that he should have gone through legal channels need only read this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
I'm not sure how many more times this question needs to be asked and answered. The NSA, or any other unaccountable power structure, will not self-regulate.
Isn't this a classic case of a bad business move by a big business creating incentives for other firms to fill that market need? Am I missing something? Sure, it's not great for the publisher in question, but heck - there is going to be a lot of money made by whomever DOES sell JK Rowling's next book.
You don't need to have statistical significance and best-practice psychometric design to make useful observations. There is certainly a big difference between the design of psychological studies that identify things like the correlation between childhood abuse and self-injurious behavior (cutting), and experiments such as this one, which are obviously not expected to yield statistically meaningful data, but rather create a situation in which dynamics can be observed. Many of the dynamics of the experiment which can be criticized as flaws can also be observed in the real world scenarios it was meant to emulate. The criticism of both this and the Milgram experiment are largely based on the combination of causing real harm to the subjects in addition to having a vague and statistically meaningless/useless outcome. But even by recognizing the experiment could cause real harm, we certainly advanced the science, and also became aware of dynamics that surprised people, while documenting them and providing a basis for future evaluation and refinement.
You don't start off with good experiments and results. The beginning is rough.
In my state it's even murkier, as there is a technical definition of the level of tint that's allowed. And I don't think there are many laws enforced equally for blacks and whites.
There are quite a few libertarians who take great pains to give to charity, and many who do not (same as conservatives and liberals). There are virtually no libertarians who want to take your money and give it to causes you disagree with.
Funny, but I was just wondering whether minority young males, who disproportionately have tinted windows, do so to hide from the cops, or to look cool. And I'm wondering if they realize that by having tinted windows they are broadcasting to the cops "Young minority male driver!"
Few mature libertarians argue that free markets are perfect. Free markets exchange one set of problems caused by government and regulation for another set of problems that people can choose to deal with (or not) through personal responsibility and voluntary cooperation. Human problems exist in both cases, but libertarians tend to prefer personal choice as a response. Painting libertarians as utopians is probably only accurate as far as the college campus goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a nice overall view, again, see chart 4, which shows men are more likely to be victims of violent crime OVERALL: http://nortonbooks.typepad.com...
FYI - since Geekoid correctly pointed out my referenced data didn't include homicide, please see table 4 here which shows men are homicide victims at about 4 times the rate of women: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
table 4 if you will.
And here's the homicide data, see table 4. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
"digsbo already cited the relevant reference showing that men have more to fear from others than women do" no he didn't. He doesn't understand the context and is using a specific type of crime as all crime, it is not. For example, the paper does not include homicide.
Ok fine, since you keep cherry picking your data with "intimate partners" or "domestic abuse", here's the data for homicide, and it is overwhelmingly showing that men are many times (almost 4X) more likely to be homicide victims:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
It's in table 4.
And again, please see table 7, about 50% higher victimization rate for men: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
Because you keep referencing statistics limited to "intimate partners", which is not what anyone else is talking about.
He didn't limit his statement to intimate partners. See other stats in this thread, especially table 7 in my earlier comment, that shows men are overall 50% more likely, more or less, to be victims of violent crime.
Not sure whether you are trying to cherry pick the data or just misunderstood, but you might want to tone it down, because as I read it, you're wrong in this.
Please see my post above - about "table 7", in the USA, men are at about a 50% higher risk of being the victims of violent crime. Generally this conversation was assumed to be USA-centric, but I could easily see where a different country has different results.
Please back up your assertions with some facts.
Fair enough. Please see table 7: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
A statistically significant higher percentage of victims of violent crime are male, consistently, across that survey's data.
Might have been a misunderstanding of this one saying 38% of rape victims are male, which is interesting, but different, from the perpetrator stats he posted: http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/...
Now you're getting somewhere. I've never seen inappropriate or aggressive behavior towards women in any of the geek/nerd groups I've been in. In fact, I'd say most of them would get strong marks for showing full respect for women. That said, I am certain that reports of specific incidents and groups having a pattern of behavior are real. I recall one of the security conventions had a problem, which somehow didn't surprise me, knowing that's a sub-group of geekdom with its own dynamic.
Generally speaking, I have found the bigger problems tend to go with the more macho types though. Yes, occasionally you hear of a problem with a school group other than a sports team, but in the vast majority of cases, groups of men who are aggressive towards women are groups of men who are GENERALLY aggressive. Drug gangs, low grade thugs, etc., are all far worse, unquestionably, than "geeks".
It really sounds to me like there is a concerted effort to apply labels and groupings to what is really just an age old problem.
Now, on the other hand, can we address the reality that men are FAR more likely than women to be victims of violence, physical intimidation, violent crime, and other physical threats such as military hazards and other job-related physical danger?
The problem here is not that anyone is against ending violence against women. It's that we have blown what is effectively a rare occurrence (dude going nuts) being confused with a non-existent pattern of nerd rage, all being whipped into a social media shitstorm to make PC points in the press.
My apologies for not using a bad car analogy. But cancer...cancer takes energy from the host organism to overgrow, aggressively, until the host dies. The model of highly budgeted out-of-control government agencies fits that model well. AIDS is an infectious disease that weakens the host slowly enough to spread. I don't see how that fits in this case.
There are legitimate activities undertaken by the FBI daily. Such examples as child porn, kidnapping, and other Federal law enforcement duties. I think of these as being more like the immune system.
There are other activities the FBI engages in like entrapment of mentally deficient individuals into terror "plots" where they convince some nearly retarded guy that he's got a truck full of explosives, and to drive them into a sensitive target. This is more like cancer.
Now where there are good and bad aspects to what the FBI does, it's tough to understand in what way the NSA or CIA are doing anything that's healthy for the nation. Seems mostly like stuff to justify their own existence (CIA creates enemies by interfering in other countries' government, NSA makes enemies by violating other countries' citizens' privacy, both groups then use blowback to justify their budget/unconstitutional actions).
I'm not sure how many more times this question needs to be asked and answered. The NSA, or any other unaccountable power structure, will not self-regulate.
Isn't this a classic case of a bad business move by a big business creating incentives for other firms to fill that market need? Am I missing something? Sure, it's not great for the publisher in question, but heck - there is going to be a lot of money made by whomever DOES sell JK Rowling's next book.
You don't need to have statistical significance and best-practice psychometric design to make useful observations. There is certainly a big difference between the design of psychological studies that identify things like the correlation between childhood abuse and self-injurious behavior (cutting), and experiments such as this one, which are obviously not expected to yield statistically meaningful data, but rather create a situation in which dynamics can be observed. Many of the dynamics of the experiment which can be criticized as flaws can also be observed in the real world scenarios it was meant to emulate. The criticism of both this and the Milgram experiment are largely based on the combination of causing real harm to the subjects in addition to having a vague and statistically meaningless/useless outcome. But even by recognizing the experiment could cause real harm, we certainly advanced the science, and also became aware of dynamics that surprised people, while documenting them and providing a basis for future evaluation and refinement.
You don't start off with good experiments and results. The beginning is rough.
In my state it's even murkier, as there is a technical definition of the level of tint that's allowed. And I don't think there are many laws enforced equally for blacks and whites.
What rumored experiment? It's well documented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
No, you're right. I'm talking the northeast, VA through ME. Since they're not a necessity here, they attract attention.
Try reading Mencken. He's libertarian in a significant way, but doesn't paint anything as 100%. He's also funny as hell.
There are quite a few libertarians who take great pains to give to charity, and many who do not (same as conservatives and liberals). There are virtually no libertarians who want to take your money and give it to causes you disagree with.
You just described government, too.
Funny, but I was just wondering whether minority young males, who disproportionately have tinted windows, do so to hide from the cops, or to look cool. And I'm wondering if they realize that by having tinted windows they are broadcasting to the cops "Young minority male driver!"
Few mature libertarians argue that free markets are perfect. Free markets exchange one set of problems caused by government and regulation for another set of problems that people can choose to deal with (or not) through personal responsibility and voluntary cooperation. Human problems exist in both cases, but libertarians tend to prefer personal choice as a response. Painting libertarians as utopians is probably only accurate as far as the college campus goes.