UK: Hostility to men and the elderly could become hate crimes - Sensationalist Headlines

The thing is though, there ARE structures in society that give more power to certain groups, which do create an effect on an individual level

So, because on average black people have lower IQ scores, we should just assume black people are stupid when we come accross an individual? This is the same logic, and fortunately that is not how statistics work. The statistics mean there is an marginal chance someone has benefited sometime in their life on an individual level, but it says basically nothing about the absolute position that random individual you come across will be in. The obvious example is if you go up to a white skinned disabled homeless person on the street and assume that because they are white he's been positively affected because of their skin color at some point in their life, when in reality it was only ever an increased chance of that happening, and obviously does not inform their current state at all.

But... someone's overall state doesn't dictate what good or bad things may have happened to them. Not quite sure what your first comment means in relation to mine though tbh

You cannot draw conclusions about individuals based on statistics by definition. You are drawing conclusions about individuals based on statistics.

The conclusions of black people living in poorer areas en-mass causing stressful living conditions is an example. Did you know that the state/stress of living in poverty actually reduces brain power? https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/08/29/poor-concentration-poverty-reduces-brainpower-needed-navigating-other-areas-life Not to mention the obvious over incarceration and police brutality.

Stop evading the point of individuals vs group, and also note that your example isn't even an example of institutional prejudice. An example of institutional prejudice would be a school choosing to review less black applicants because of a statistical difference in IQ, instead of evaluating each individual independently. A group of people being statistically more likely to live in a poor area does not mean you should assume all or even most black people you meet live in a shanty towns. If an individual black person does not live in a poorer area then any causal or correlational relationships to "brain power" would no longer apply, though other factors might, but only statistically. i really don't know how to be any clearer on this. Do not assume individuals are a certain way because their race or gender is statistically more likely to be a certain way, this is prejudice by definiton. The standard deviation on these stats is huge and the overwhelming majoirty of the normal distribution does not exist at the exact center of the curve.

Can we step back for a moment? I think there is some miscommunication. The problem people have isn’t that power can play a factor or have a relationship with hate crimes. The problem we have is that a loud minority of idiots who implicitly take this definition to mean that people who have less perceived power (such as minorities) are completely incapable of committing hate crimes. No one is trying to dispute the fact that minority groups take the brunt of most hate crimes. Considering their history, I find that a bit hard to believe unless Headhumpy explicitly denies it.

The whole "this group is privileged" because x therefore they must pay y reparations is so fucking bullshit and is such a one dimensional analysis of society at large.

Well yeah, deriving an absolute statement as to the character of the individuals one comes across derived from the statistics one has at hand is faulty logic, and while I am not sure anyone is saying this here or not, I'm sure I at least agree. You did state that this is mostly a general rant so how related it is to posts here is no longer really relevant. What I do find odd is your claim about how "many people" in "faux academic fields" do not seem to understand that this is the case. Do you just mean people who don't understand their fields properly, or do you mean that the fields themselves are somehow "faux" and inherently illegitimate? If so, can you give an example of such fields, and consequently also give an example of meaningful academics in said fields who uphold this faulty logic as sound?

This whole "this is what this user REALLY meant, considering their history!" is one of the weakest counter-arguments I've seen on this forum.

i got better things to do than babysit people who build strawman arguments so they can feel better about themselves

Because if you can change the meaning of words you can use them to hide the truth rather than express it, its a typical slight of hand among-st political ideologues and has ramped up over the years. George Orwell actually wrote about this in his Politics and the English Language.

I guess Tudd really just found it interesting after all

Not only that, while some posts in Headhumpy's history (on a lazy reading) seem like stereotypical SJW positions on the surface, I am pretty certain there wasn't a single post to suggest that uncharitable interpretation. The only way one might come to this conclusion is by projecting the vague category one has constructed in their head, and relegated these sort of statements to, onto said poster.

The criticism isn't that you have an obvious stance but that you were pretending you didn't. Your response to me makes no sense at all.

How do you determine who has more power? If I am rich but have no friends or social influence do I have more power than a middle class man who is well liked in his community? I hope you don't suggest we just assign each race and religion a power level.