Numbers don’t even seem to add up, or something strongly changed between 2007 and 2010.

Also, you’re either a troll or a very incompetent researcher. You should absolutely never ever rely on LLMs to serve you any factual data. LLMs are highly prone to hallucinations.

Here’s an actual paper on the issue: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268123001713

Generally, the migrant crime rate increased in 2008-2014, but then decreased throughout 2015-2019. In total, the change averages to about zero.

As per reasoning, two primary forces are demonstrated: on one hand, poorer material conditions, and on the other, the fear of being deported. In 2015-2019, during refugee crisis, being sent back could mean essential death sentence, which shifted the balance. All of this is to say that we should improve material conditions for migrants if we want the crime rates among them to drop further. Instead, it is currently done under threats of deportation.

The only thing left unanswered for me is sexual violence. But in Germany, the difference between natives and locals is not as big as to justify mass measures against an entirety of migrant population.

It’s a common indicator of people making throwaway accounts for the sake of trolling without backlash.

Sometimes genuine accounts may have strong takes, but that’s more rare. And the nickname “mods_mum” doesn’t make it any more believable.

I’mma be honest, I didn’t dig statistics for Germany, but I live in Russia where the same migrant hysteria is rampant rn, and saw some numbers from there.

On average, immigrants in Russia commit less crimes per person than native population. The areas in which there are objectively more crimes are migration laws (obviously) and sexual offences. Numbers in other categories are higher by native Russians. And mind you, our migrants come from underdeveloped primarily Muslim countries, too.

With that said, do you have data on the share of crimes committed by native German population and immigrants? Pure numbers mean little without context.

I’d argue that, while privacy comes at a cost to society, it’s an essential building block of democracy.

Unfortunately, we cannot uncover messages of child abusers without also helping uncover messages of opposition leaders, for example.

Also, as our lives move more and more digital, basic expectation of personal privacy online becomes part of comfortable digital living. We all have things we don’t want a random dude in the uniform to see, even if there’s nothing criminal in there at all.

That said, total digital surveillance is probably gonna cost us more than digital privacy, but government has a lot to gain from it, which is, to my mind, why we have this unpopular thing pushed so hard in the first place. Public is generally very vocal about NOT wanting this.

No you sound like an ass.

Having strong disagreements doesn’t mean personal rage answers are alright.

While disagreeing with the statement above, I’d like to call for civility.

There is plenty, and the general sentiment is anti-war. It’s just hugely unsafe to speak out publicly against the regime. In private, most people seem to agree that this is a bloody massacre nobody asked for.

Thanks - in any case, I’m happy I’ve got my point across to someone.

Correct on interpretation, and solid wording :)

Until you see that by going for short-term solutions, we may end up causing way, way more harm and have more women sexually assaulted, I don’t think this conversation is worth having, either.

I sincerely hope we will be able to direct our attention at treating the source of a problem instead of applying patches. And I absolutely hope you or anyone here won’t ever be abused by others.

But for now, farewell.

Not that I care of downvotes when I’m right.

Yet you don’t seem to listen, instead going for labels and trying so so hard to make it personal in several threads at once.

I don’t think this kind of conversation can remain productive.

Women are not tools - and I never said that. Women, as all people, may have to sacrifice this short-term benefit for the long-term effect and actually lasting safe environment - that’s my point. In a world where people radicalize and suggest knee-jerk solutions, I want to step back to see if evidence is there to back them up.

I say that sometimes people make irrational decisions that hurts the bottom line for themselves and others, and game theory means sometimes we have to all sacrifice something to maintain a better position than we could achieve individually - in this case, a world where we don’t have to isolate ourselves to be safe and live in fear of someone.

If allowing women to “protect themselves” by letting them choose male-free spaces is gonna cause the rise in male violence, this will undermine the very purpose of this initiative. And since individually every woman is still better off separated, this will perpetuate even further, even if collectively women lose big time.

I’m concerned about this particular risk. Should it be about men instead of women, I’d be same kind of concerned. This is not meant to be misogynistic (or misandric for that matter). This is rather collectivist, choosing a solution that could bring people together and let them actually solve the problem that requires both ends to solve. And a suggested initiative only makes this goal father away, proliferating the general issue that causes the concern in the first place.

Separating people based on inherent traits is never the solution, which we somehow understand in any case but this one.

Thanks for pointing it out. I will see what I can do to correct it.

Is it something about the way I put it, like if I decide for women how it would be better for them?

Because my real position here, outlined clearly from my point of view but maybe not from someone else’s, is that we should better study the consequences of that approach to make a more informed decision.

One could come from a strictly individualistic approach, to allow and empower people to act as they see fit, but the moment we set examples of things already resolved, people start thinking otherwise.

I’m gonna get another hate wave for this comparison, but this is just illustrative example, so hear me out first: should we allow white people to make separate white-only spaces on the same planes? We can absolutely try and justify it by the same “giving agency” argument, all while pointing out people of color do more crimes and can be, on average, more “dangerous”.

All of which would be complete bullshit that omits any nuance that the very segregation puts people in conditions that promote such behavior and there is nothing about being black or hispanic or whatever in itself that promotes it. So we should absolutely fight back against any such idea.

Similar themes here, except the conditions here are less material (in fact, men even have somewhat of an advantage here) and more purely social. Externally isolated communities often promote dangerous behaviors, and to combat that, we should avoid forming such communities by not alienating them by the arbitrary category of gender in the first place. Otherwise, we are gonna see communities similar to incels grow and get more dangerous.

I just suppose that the risk of alienating men and them getting more violent may outweigh the immediate benefit of increased plane safety, eventually turning against women themselves. But to prove or disprove that point, I’d love to see more numbers. Before that, I do not welcome radical solutions that are not informed by a solid body of evidence, as they often carry questionable consequences.

I never defended sexual assault; I just said that:

If allowing women to avoid being seated next to men on flights reduces the chance of sexual assault from taking place

Is a big “if”. In your original sentence, on the plane, yes, it might reduce the risk of assault. But life doesn’t end outside the plane, and I wonder whether such restriction could just lead to increased risk of sexual assault elsewhere, due to a)frustration of the same men who didn’t do it on the plane and can probably still do it in any other place; b)influence of such measures on how abusive men treat the status quo and resist it - thereby negating all the benefit.

Which is why, if you feel my take “sounds” like something, I ask to clarify first and attack later. This is not a ragebait dumpster, and people are generally acting in good faith around Lemmy.

My take is exactly that the suggested approach might not improve women’s safety overall. The “betterment of men”, as you put it, is the key ingredient to a sustainable solution on male sexual harassment and violence, and segregation is a patch that can come with unintended consequences that will undermine this process and directly hurt women.

We may not ignore the social and psychological consequences of such actions for men, as their mental wellbeing is directly related to the probability of committing assault, thereby again, directly affecting women.

I’m trying to make a point to counter the immediate knee-jerk approach, and call to collect evidence on the efficacy of such measures to promote women’s safety. Any policy should be driven by what actually works, not what we feel of it.

I urge you to stop assuming bad faith in everyone you disagree with, and to clarify first. Lemmy is very much a people-driven platform, and absolute majority of people here are well-intentioned. Thereby, if another person shares a different opinion, they probably come from a position of care as much as you do, they just have a different consideration in mind.

I’m not ever saying women are dispensable tools in this fight (something you imply I said) or that we should “sacrifice” someone - the safety of every person is hugely valuable - I’m just saying that going separate is not gonna make things safer in the long run. There are other factors at play here that will show up, and we should not strive for knee-jerk solutions.

I doubt that separation alone is gonna help much, and I’d love to see comprehensive evidence for or against my take, if any exists. I want to see what is the best evidence-based solution that would actually improve safety of everyone.

If anything, I want to make sure as little women as possible are ever victims of such accidents, I’m just concerned over whether this is a best approach.

Yeah that’s part of what I mean.

Another part is that this proliferates the issue on both ends - aggressive men don’t learn to behave well as they don’t confront the situation and don’t learn self-control, and women turn more to fear and loathing, severing more and more contacts with men and alienating them, which ends up hurting men and limiting their exposure to women side of the story, making them more violent.

I’m saying those particular men who find assaulting women acceptable find it acceptable everywhere, on a plane or outside. Or should we isolate women from men in all spheres of life? This in itself can’t be the solution. Also, alienation that comes with such segregation is a common driver for violence, and I’d love to see how it might translate to more abusive sexual behavior, too. I don’t have the numbers, and would love to see if someone does.

The rest is your emotional outburst. I hate to see Lemmy going in this direction and I hoped we won’t have this bullshit here. Try to understand another person’s take first and judge later, not the other way around. And don’t make it personal, this immediately degrades the conversation.

My concern is that the same men, frustrated at being unable to do this on flight, will do it somewhere else anyway. Also, some could be pissed off by this measure just enough to have a negative shift in mentality towards women (see incels that are driven by alientation). So does it really significantly reduce harm? I’d love to see numbers if anyone has got them.

Honestly I think in most cases segregation is just not the answer.

The more far away we become based on fairly arbitrary characteristics, the less there is opportunity for a meaningful dialogue that would change the status quo around the issue.

On a practical side, I wish there were proper passenger safety measures and procedures against harassment. A man is trying to do that to you? Record it and report to the crew immediately, and let them deal with the perpetrator and call police on the ground when applicable.

Happy you did!

Also, afaik, there are guidelines for trans athletes in most major sports competitions, in terms of testosterone levels etc., to ensure fair play, so this wouldn’t matter anyway.

And also, Algeria is officially a Sunni Islam country where gender transition is outlawed.