26% of violent crime convicts account for 63% of violent crime conviction (2014)

Let's call it poetic justice, or taste of their own medicine.

You're missing the other half of the picture. How many were deterred because of prison? Would it have been 2 or 5 or 10% were it not for the deterrents? You can't say.

On other news, water is wet!!!

Imagine what kind of society it would be if the number of convicted felons and ex-felons (of violent crimes alone!!!) would be a significative percentage of the population.

Either, it would be a Mad-Max world where everybody would be shooting and stabbing their neighbour for the most ridiculous reasons; or we would all live under the boot of a Despotic Government that would put you in jail for the tiniest displays of non-compliance... like, calling "violence" to scowling at some annoying person or another.

Just have a look at the public discourse in Sweden and you'll soon find out your position is untenable. While you are right in stating that the majority of the population will not find [these assertions] racist (or xenophobe, islamophobe, etcetera) there is a big discrepancy between what people think and what they can state out loud for fear of being called just that. This is due in part to the fact that the media - print and broadcast - are very active in disavowing such standpoints and putting those labels on people who hold them. This in turn is most likely related to the large difference in political affiliations between the public at large (where you'll find an about even divide between "left" and "right", largely clustered around the centre) and those who work in the media (89% on the left side, 78% of which on the extreme left [1]). As those who are stamped with such a label can expect to be shunned by both friends as well as employers this habit of vocally labelling anyone who steps outside of the left-of-centre narrative as racist has created an atmosphere of fear for being pointed out [2].

So yes, at least in Sweden you'll voice an opinion like this at your own peril. You describe yourself as a radical leftist (and a radical feminist). I can all but guarantee that you would be an outcast among your peers if you even hint to having such opinions. A good example of this phenomenon can be found with Amineh Kakabaveh [3], a Kurdish woman who was shunned her party [4] because of her active stance against honour crimes, for women's rights and secularism.

[1] https://jmg.gu.se/digitalAssets/1284/1284227_nr38.pdf

[2] The wall seems to be crumbling a bit now that it is nearly impossible to remain ignorant of the facts. Some politicians still try to keep up the narrative but critical voices are now heard even in some mainstream publications.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amineh_Kakabaveh

[4] "Vänsterpartiet", they used to call themselves the left-wing communist party but ditched the "communist" term after the dissolution of the Soviet Union

> Men may be the majority of Google employees, but they clearly aren't the majority of the population. That suggests there is discrimination somewhere, either in Google's hiring approach or in wider society (it's unlikely that there is some innate difference between men and woman that would account for such a disparity).

OP was citing Damore's claim about population level differences. Damore's claim wasn't that the US is 80% male so of course Google is 80% male, it's that men and women have different distributions for a given trait (hence, "population level differences") and these differences in distribution might account for Google's demographics better than discrimination. One such population-level difference is that women are far more likely to choose careers that are flexible or to leave the workplace altogether to start a family. By itself, this difference doesn't likely account for the whole disparity, but there are others as well--women prefer to work with people as opposed to abstract reasoning systems. It could even be true that men and women are on average exactly as qualified to be a Google engineer, but that men have a flatter distribution (more representation at the extreme low and high end of the distribution) and that Google samples from the high end, ergo selecting more males. Greater male variability is common in lots of species (including humans) for lots of different traits. It's also interesting that female participation in STEM is inversely proportional to gender equality; countries with very high gender equality (e.g., Scandanavian countries) have relatively few women in STEM while cultures with less gender equality (the middle east, India, China, etc) have far greater STEM participation. It also seems unlikely that discrimination is the cause since women achieved parity in medicine and law in the '80s and '90s when the fields were notoriously, overtly sexist, but the tech industry can't move the needle despite sinking tens or hundreds of millions into "diversity". It seems entirely likely that innate differences play a significant role.

There will undoubtedly be a lot of (otherwise very intelligent) people who will read "population level gender differences" and interpret it as "Wait, you're saying X is true for literally every woman?! How can you generalize like that?!". Of course, this isn't what I'm saying or what the OP said or what Damore said, so let's not go down that straw man rabbit hole.