Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The murder that shook Iceland

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#31

Post by oxymoron »

tom_mellior wrote: post #18
oxymoron wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Stephen Pinker, the correlation between inequality and violence is weak. It really surprised me, because I always assumed that they’d be linked.

If anything, as hinted above, there are lots of other confounding factors. Also, Wikipedia's wealth inequality list looks a lot less similar to murder rates than the income inequality list I posted above. Would you know off the top of your head if Pinker wrote about wealth or about income inequality? (Or yet another measure?)

I looked it up, since I got downvoted (see sibling comment). Since he’s talking about the Gini coeffecient, I’d presume he’s referring to income inequality, although it’s not explicit.

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#32

Post by zeveb »

narrator wrote: post #8
ghaff wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the usual reasons. Homogeneity, social cohesion... These are probably not universally correlated with low crime but they certainly tend to be.

How do you measure social cohesion? Crime rate might be one way, but then you've got yourself a tautology.

> How do you measure social cohesion?

It's the inverse of diversity. Economic inequality, religious, philosophical & cultural diversity — make a measure which combines all of those things, then invert it. It'd at least make a start.

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#33

Post by fiedzia »

PKop wrote: post #26
middleclick wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you made a new account to comment this indicates to me that I should not assume good faith because I know what you were hinting at: race.

He probably knew people wouldn't engage with him in good faith. If you look up crime statistics, there is merit to the argument of homogenous culture = less violent crime. Do you disagree? Take US as an example. We're always described as having a high gun crime and murder rate relative to some other developed nation. But if you control for race, those numbers drop previously when looking at whites only. Is this not a…

> And still very low violent crime

Well, part of that is that considering population density, its not so easy for one Icelander to meet another.

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#34

Post by JackFr »

ghaff wrote: post #6
nopressure wrote: post #2

>a country with one of the lowest murder rates in the world I wonder why...

Probably the usual reasons. Homogeneity, social cohesion... These are probably not universally correlated with low crime but they certainly tend to be.

Mostly irrelevant factoid - Lincoln, NE is reasonably close to Iceland in population, murder rate, gun ownership.

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#35

Post by chrischen »

nopressure wrote: post #25
middleclick wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you made a new account to comment this indicates to me that I should not assume good faith because I know what you were hinting at: race.

Yes but if I did say it like that it would've been flagged by now, instead of getting any kind of discussion or rebuttal about it, because that's how the hivemind works. I also don't understand why is it bad faith to say or imply that racial homogeinity leads to better cohesion and in turn more safety and equality. I guess I'll never know because any kind of discussion about that is shut off for some reason.

Because there are clear counterpoints to that. Take the Phillipines, or Mexico. Those countries have high gun ownership, violence, and are pretty homogenous too.

If you want a country with white people, take Russia (though I’m not sure how homogenous it is, it’s definitely not US levels of integration).

Simply because some homogenous societies have low murder rates doesn’t mean all do, and does not mean the reason is homogeneity.

Often white racists in the US make the argument that if there was more homogeneity then there wouldbe less violence. However this shirks the responsibility of the white people for the fact that historically they were the instigators of all racial hate. Black people in America have high crime rates due to systematic and concerted efforts to oppress them over 2 centuries. Blaming that oppression as just some natural unavoidable thing that happens when there is racial integration is what one is trying to do when they argue homogenity is the reason, rather than the belief of racial superiority or hate.

If you go to Countries like China, while they can say insensitive things about black people due to the lack of experience interacting with them, they definitely do not harbor any of the American style racial beliefs towards them.

Blaming lack of homogeneity as the cause for racial issues is shirking responsibility for causing them.

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#36

Post by morley »

Interesting that this appears on the front page at the same time as this story:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16828973

I don't have a particular point of view either way other than to say that context matters, and pragmatism matters, and the solution to these potential problems can't be "remove all surveillance" any more than it can be "surveil everything."

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#37

Post by s_kilk »

PKop wrote: post #26
middleclick wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you made a new account to comment this indicates to me that I should not assume good faith because I know what you were hinting at: race.

He probably knew people wouldn't engage with him in good faith. If you look up crime statistics, there is merit to the argument of homogenous culture = less violent crime. Do you disagree? Take US as an example. We're always described as having a high gun crime and murder rate relative to some other developed nation. But if you control for race, those numbers drop previously when looking at whites only. Is this not a…

I'm constantly amazed at the amount of phrenology-level discourse we have on this site.

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#38

Post by pitiburi »

chrischen wrote: post #35
nopressure wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but if I did say it like that it would've been flagged by now, instead of getting any kind of discussion or rebuttal about it, because that's how the hivemind works. I also don't understand why is it bad faith to say or imply that racial homogeinity leads to better cohesion and in turn more safety and equality. I guess I'll never know because any kind of discussion about that is shut off for some reason.

Because there are clear counterpoints to that. Take the Phillipines, or Mexico. Those countries have high gun ownership, violence, and are pretty homogenous too. If you want a country with white people, take Russia (though I’m not sure how homogenous it is, it’s definitely not US levels of integration). Simply because some homogenous societies have low murder rates doesn’t mean all do, and does not mean the reason is…

You really, really have your data wrong. Obviously you have a cliché-type idea of what Mexico it's. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/06/people-mexico-show-st...

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#39

Post by dahart »

nopressure wrote: post #2

>a country with one of the lowest murder rates in the world I wonder why...

The article gave some reasons why. Do you disagree with them, or did you not read them?

"With a small, mostly homogenous population of 340,000 and a high degree of economic equality, Iceland is one of the world’s safest nations. It is the only Nato member without a standing army. [...] Police are not armed [...] The feeling of security is bolstered by Icelanders’ tendency to look out for one another, a tradition that dates back to times when close collaboration was essential to make it through the long, brutal winters."

Re: The murder that shook Iceland

#40

Post by chrischen »

PKop wrote: post #28
nopressure wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but if I did say it like that it would've been flagged by now, instead of getting any kind of discussion or rebuttal about it, because that's how the hivemind works. I also don't understand why is it bad faith to say or imply that racial homogeinity leads to better cohesion and in turn more safety and equality. I guess I'll never know because any kind of discussion about that is shut off for some reason.

Because we are told and must believe despite contradictory evidence that diversity is always and in every way "our strength". Even though when discussing company hiring practices people switch their rhetoric to proclaim "our culture" is very important and we must keep our company's culture the same, bring on new people slowly as to preserve the culture etc, etc. Interesting cognitive dissonance.

If you love using evidence then you should probably take a look at it once in a while. It’s no coincidence the economic powerhouses in the US are also the most diverse and progressive places in the US, and that the US is the economic center of the world.

Diversity has nothing to do with losing culture. It’s about sharing cultures and understanding other cultures and points of view. Diversity is a fundamental requirement of all life, whether it’s cultural, racial, or cellular and genetic. In all cases diversity increases resilience, whether to new unaccounted for situations or new diseases.

Post reply on HN