Don't worry, it's only dangerous here if you're a woman, a person of color, non-Christian, an immigrant, disabled, poor, live in a city/town near industrial plants, need medical care, a senior citizen, are LGBTQ+, a sex worker, an addict, or live near natural disasters.
32,658 people were killed by terrorists in 2014. Does that mean we're more likely to be killed by terrorists than by police?
Of course not, because that was terrorists killed around the world. There's more people living around the world than in the US. In the US, only 3,046 people were killed by terrorists between 2001 and 2014.
More white people get killed in America because there are more white people here than black people. But adjusting for population, more black people get killed in America by cops than white people. Three times more. I provided tons of links (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18168217), you can see for yourself.
Though blacks are 8 more times likely to commit homicide than whites.
If you assume probabilistic independence (which you probably shouldn't), that means that a black murderer only has 3/8ths the chance of being killed compared to a white murderer.
Because it's a list of things that makes it risky to live in this country, not just people getting shot. I list several groups without gender or race, and white males can still be in those groups. But just being a white male in and of itself isn't risky. That's the least risky group.
I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, if you have any evidence. Can you provide me a single metric of a societal risk to white males more than any other group, adjusted for population? (That is to say, a risk that is caused by society and isn't health/genetic related, like prevalence of disease)
The link I provided clearly shows that white males are second only to black males in terms of how likely they are to be shot by police. My point is that excluding white males as victims of police violence or framing the problem as something that does not affect white males helps no one.
Well first off, if you doubt it's true, all you need to do to disprove it is to provide a single example of white males being the subject of more risk than any other group by population, in any metric, that isn't genetic or similar. I haven't found one. Again, they are certainly included in risk-prone groups, as I listed, but as far as I can tell, not as the sole members of a most-risk-prone group.
Second, the whole point of all of this is to look at who is most at risk. Yes, white males do encounter risk. But that's not what's important: what's important is, who is most at risk? The answer, in the apparent absence of evidence to the contrary, would appear to be "not white males".
It's usually at this point, when someone says that this is divisive and not helpful, that we get to "All Lives Matter".
Black Lives Matter was explicitly intended to only point out the risks of being black in this country, in order to raise awareness of those unique risks, and to try to reach some social justice. This had the unfortunate side effect of shining a light away from white people's problems. White people still had problems, and they still wanted people to care. Some white people even felt personally attacked by Black Lives Matter. So white people found the phrase divisive, and made up a new phrase to take the focus away from BLM's core issues: All Lives Matter. "Don't worry about only black people's problems, because I want you to worry about my problems, too."
It may make white males feel that it's divisive, but really it's just difficult to accept that other people may be more in need, in one aspect or another. The goal of all this is to focus on the groups that are at the most risk, acknowledge them, and try to address their issues.
The US is dangerous no matter who you are. It's just that in every category of risk, it's less dangerous if you're a white male.
> Well first off, if you doubt it's true, all you need to do to disprove it is to provide a single example of white males being the subject of more risk than any other group by population, in any metric, that isn't genetic or similar.
White men are subject to more risk of being shot by police than black females.
White men are subject to more risk of being shot by police than white females.
White men are subject to more risk of being shot by police than any female of any skin color.
> It's just that in every category of risk, it's less dangerous if you're a white male.
False. The largest prediction for high risk for being shot by the police is social econimic status. Second largest predictor is being male. Third largest is african american skin color. Poor black male has the highest risk, and rich white female the lowest risk. White male as an demographic has higher risk than the average (50%) in the US population because the trait "male" is a larger predictor to risk of being shot by the police than the trait "white".
That may be true, but the OP is talking about risk, so you need to compare those figures to the population breakdown. The risk experienced by a white person (representing 45% of those shot by police and 72% of the population) is significantly lower than that of a black person (22% of those shot by police, 12% of the population). Similar story for other minorities.
Yes, proportionally black males are more likely to be shot by police than white males. But pointing out that in GP's list of all the groups that need to be wary of police, the one most shot by police in absolute numbers is absent.
In terms of "risk" they're second only to black males. Women, on the other hand, regardless of race, are extremely unlikely to be shot by police. So why are they on the list?
Oh, I see, reading your previous comment again – you interpreted it as a “list of all the groups that need to be wary of police”. It’s not that, it’s just about “danger” in a broad sense.
Broadly speaking, white males are second only to black males in terms of being targets of violence in the United States. That's all violence, not just the police inflicted kind.
It’s true that police militarization is a problem for everyone. The fact remains that any particular person of color is more likely to be killed by police than any particular white person is, and that’s a meaningful difference in the lives of persons of color.
That’s true and probably because the framing of the debate is mostly along the lines of race when income is probably the best indicator and most minority groups with some exceptions are disadvantaged in the US.
That's not the case the parent is making, however. The parent is saying that the risk is disproportionately greater for black males and/or other minority groups at large.
