Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

But 3% far from 11%, which is the number of Asian lawyers. So they are underrepresented as partners, which is evidence of discrimination.

The 11% number is irrelevant, except to note that they are overrepresented as lawyers in general. 5.6% is the number that should be partners if the numbers were spot on. They are currently 2.6% under in one field, but very much over 5.6% in upper management in general. If that general number falls under 5.6%, we have a problem. Individual field numbers will fluctuate up and down, sometimes being lower than 5.6% and sometimes higher. That's normal and not a problem at all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm generally fine with it. You have the issue with it being used.

No, I have a problem with the concept. You introduced this ridiculousness about a problem with the word. Do not put words in my mouth again.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Is that really the best you can do, and do you really think such schoolyard tactics are convincing counterarguments?

But 3% far from 11%, which is the number of Asian lawyers. So they are underrepresented as partners, which is evidence of discrimination.

Wait. Let me understand you completely. You are saying that if a minority is overrepresented in one area, failure to maintain the overrepresentation in management of that area is evidence of discrimination?

Let's run with that. Who do you want to be underrepresented in law partners to correct the 'discrimination' of Asians not being properly overrepresented? Which other group needs to have fewer partners so we can correct this wrong?

 

[Umbran]

Please allow me to rephrase:

It's now a privilege to not be a victim?

When victimization is a norm, yes.

And, that, in fact, is a major part of the point of discussing it as privilege - a privileged person may not recognize how common issues are.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When victimization is a norm, yes.

And, that, in fact, is a major part of the point of discussing it as privilege - a privileged person may not recognize how common issues are.

I reject the concept of non-victimhood being a privilege. I don't do this because I'm white, or male, or highly educated. I do that because it's abominable to me to suggest that you should feel guilty for not being a victim. It's a perverse kind of inverse victim shaming, where the objective is not to suggest it's the victims fault for being a victim, but instead suggest that it's the non-victims fault for not being a victim.

Further, you're just reinforcing my point with statements like "a privileged person may not recognize how common issues are" in response to my statement. I've been very upfront that I think there are serious issues left to resolve, and that steps can be taken, so I readily admit that there are still common issues that affect some minorities. But I don't feel guilty that I don't suffer some of those common issues, nor should I.

Privilege theory, as you note, started as a platform for discovering how things like institutional racism continue can continue to exist in an egalitarian society. For that, it's an interesting theory that has had some insights, and some of those useful, in identifying why institutional racism lingers in some ways in the US despite all the effort to wipe it out. But it should remain there -- as a tool to examine things and make occasional suggestions. Instead it's now this perverted monstrosity, decrying privilege in whites as a bad thing (instead of as just a thing with some explanative power) and finding the need to make sure that the 'privileged' know that they should feel guilty and that they should take steps to distance themselves from their 'privilege' by becoming advocates for the theory. In that, it just assuages white guilt, doesn't address any problems, and exists as a crutch for victim mentality. In it's popular incarnation, privilege theory is a cancer -- it's destructive and serves in no way to make the system better.

 

[Umbran]

I reject the concept of non-victimhood being a privilege. I don't do this because I'm white, or male, or highly educated. I do that because it's abominable to me to suggest that you should feel guilty for not being a victim.

The real point of talking about privilege is not to make people feel guilt. I know that's what many people use it for, but that isn't the constructive use. Again, don't conflate use with the validity of the idea.

The real point is awareness. maybe you are aware. Many others are not. Even those who are intellectually aware can (and *do*) use the concept to maintain their awareness when going into an area where they are a bit blind. It is likewise a tool for those who are victims - they can become very, very angry that those with privilege "just don't get it". It is important to understand *why* they don't get it - it isn't really their fault, as they lack the context to be able to understand easily, and will reject the idea that they are in a superior position.

Yes, there are those who use it as a club, and don't fight ignorance constructively - that's an issue of people, not the theory.


It comes down to the difference between accountability and responsibility:

In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving. This is where guilt comes in, in the "blameworthiness".

Responsibility may refer to: being in charge, being the owner of a task or event. This isn't about guilt, but about being the one who is supposed to take action.

In software production, for example, there's a "Business Owner", who is accountable for whether or not the software succeeds in its mission. It is the developer who is responsible for writing code. Or, if you will, consider Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" - We didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world's been turning. You are not accountable for being in a position of privilege - you were likely born there, and it isn't your fault. You are, however, responsible for using that position wisely, and being aware of it when speaking with those who are not in your position.



There is also the matter of the "Tone Argument". The person in the superior position really doesn't get to choose how the victim talks about their problems. Very specifically, the argument, "Your words/tone make me feel guilty, making *me* attacked, and now *I* am a victim..." is a non-starter, a misdirection that makes the discussion is about how the privileged feel, rather than about the racism/sexism or other problem.

 

[Maxperson]

There is also the matter of the "Tone Argument". The person in the superior position really doesn't get to choose how the victim talks about their problems. Very specifically, the argument, "Your words/tone make me feel guilty, making *me* attacked, and now *I* am a victim..." is a non-starter, a misdirection that makes the discussion is about how the privileged feel, rather than about the racism/sexism or other problem.

I may not get to choose how the victim talks about their problems, but if they do so angrily and/or attack me, that person is not going to get what they want. That sort of behavior is also a non-starter, as it makes the discussion about the fight, rather than racism/sexism or other problem. If the victim doesn't talk about their issue calmly and rationally, I am not going to listen to that person.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The real point of talking about privilege is not to make people feel guilt. I know that's what many people use it for, but that isn't the constructive use. Again, don't conflate use with the validity of the idea.

The real point is awareness. maybe you are aware. Many others are not. Even those who are intellectually aware can (and *do*) use the concept to maintain their awareness when going into an area where they are a bit blind. It is likewise a tool for those who are victims - they can become very, very angry that those with privilege "just don't get it". It is important to understand *why* they don't get it - it isn't really their fault, as they lack the context to be able to understand easily, and will reject the idea that they are in a superior position.

Yes, there are those who use it as a club, and don't fight ignorance constructively - that's an issue of people, not the theory.

I don't think you can actually separate something from it's mainstream use, though. Take the Confederate flag, as an example. For some, it's a symbol of remembrance and history, but for others it's a symbol of oppression and bigotry. Both are right within their views, but only one of those viewpoints really matters. And that's as should be, at least for government.

As for using it as a club, it's not some people, You yourself used it as a club to dismiss others as being sufficiently unaware of common issues because they were privileged. Don't mistake a lack of screaming or mean intent as not using the theory as a club. You've bought into the idea that privilege has explanatory power past it's actual use, which was just one possible way to explain things. Like most such theories, it simplifies a great deal to see if such a blunt tool might turn up something interesting. But you can't mistake that blunt tool for anything with actual explanatory power, or something that can be generalized into a theory of how we need to act to fix anything. There's no solution in privilege theory -- it's only used to show who's in the club and who the heretics are.

It comes down to the difference between accountability and responsibility:

In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving. This is where guilt comes in, in the "blameworthiness".

Responsibility may refer to: being in charge, being the owner of a task or event. This isn't about guilt, but about being the one who is supposed to take action.

In software production, for example, there's a "Business Owner", who is accountable for whether or not the software succeeds in its mission. It is the developer who is responsible for writing code. Or, if you will, consider Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" - We didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world's been turning. You are not accountable for being in a position of privilege - you were likely born there, and it isn't your fault. You are, however, responsible for using that position wisely, and being aware of it when speaking with those who are not in your position.

No. No. No.

I am not responsible for using my non-victim status wisely. I am a non-victim. There is no special responsibility that falls upon me for being a non-victim of racism. While it's true that I may not appreciate the difficulty of someone that is a victim of racism - direct or institutional - and that I may not be immediately aware of something that is racist to someone not me, that doesn't obligate me in any way. I may choose to become aware. I may choose to try to help. But I do not have a privilege that obligates me to do what you think I should do. Not being a victim is not something I need to atone for.

There is also the matter of the "Tone Argument". The person in the superior position really doesn't get to choose how the victim talks about their problems. Very specifically, the argument, "Your words/tone make me feel guilty, making *me* attacked, and now *I* am a victim..." is a non-starter, a misdirection that makes the discussion is about how the privileged feel, rather than about the racism/sexism or other problem.

That's not the tone argument, although I will grant that many on tumblr seem to think it is because it obviates them from having to actually attempt to interact as humans and instead justify their wailing while not facing any criticism or questions. The tone argument is a form of an informal fallacy, and as such must be used in place of an argument against a position. Specifically, it's the tone of the argument that's used. So, if I said, 'I reject your opinion because I don't like the way you said it, it was mean,' that's a tone argument. If, instead, I say, "I reject that theory because it's designed to make people feel guilty for being non-victims," that's not a tone argument because it's a rational and logical argument that can be supported and isn't dismissing your arguments based on the tone you used to make them.

Further, you've just again proved that there's no argument that can be made by the supposed privileged class against privilege theory because privilege theory predicts that all arguments made by the privileged class are just further examples of their privilege. Only this time you're misusing logical fallacies to get there, so maybe that's not evidence of privilege theory... no, I'll go with still evidence against privilege theory because you went looking for a logical fallacy to use to show that I'm just not aware of my privilege.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's still economic profiling, which is fairly accurate.

In what way shape or form is it accurate economic profiling for a car salesman to ignore someone wearing $3k+ in clothing or another who is wearing full-on business attire, better than most of the people employed in the dealership?

I don't for a minute believe that that many people are so blatantly racist that they are ignoring you guys based solely on skin color. Some probably are, but the majority of those salesmen are trying to make money and if they thought that black people were as a whole, as economically sound as white people, you wouldn't be getting ignored like that.

Stop conflating racism with white privilege. They are related and have similar effects, but they're not the same.

White privilege means that nearly any white person- but for those seriously dressed down (see the infamous and probably apocryphal Sam Walton story)- walking through the doors will be thought of as a potential customer. It means that a Caucasian shopping for a car doesn't have to think all that seriously about how he or she is dressed when shopping for a BMW.

In contrast, based on past experience, if my father or I go car shopping wearing one of our $800 sports-coats and otherwise sporting our best, we can still expect to be ignored by at least a couple salesmen. This even happened at a dealership in which one of my relatives worked- he was the first one to talk to us. (He had to finish with another customer before he got to us...and made the sale.). What we wear is largely immaterial.. The sales personnel don't see the quality of our finery.

Now this- black guys kicked out of a Wal-Mart for "walking too slowly" and not shopping (despite having items in the cart)- is racism:
http://www.infowars.com/police-admi...k-walmart-shoppers-who-were-walking-too-slow/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...tore-for-walking-too-slow-one-arrested-video/

Ditto this- a young black teenager who is assumed to have defrauded a toney clothing store with his debit card because he couldn't possibly have had the money to pay for it legitimately. The card was assumed to be fake, even though the charge was approved.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/barneys-accused-stealing-black-teen-article-1.1493101

Or this- beaten for buying pastry.
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_another_racist_beating__in_whole_foods.html

Or for being in a hotel.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...stakenly-tackled-white-cops-article-1.2353983

Harvard prof Henry Gates was arrested for B&E and questioned for four hours...despite providing photographic ID that proved the house he was perp-walked out of was his own.

Where privilege comes in is that it is extremely rare for such things to happen to whites, and thus, that possibility isn't part of their mental state when shopping, whereas members of the black community have those scenario in mind almost every time.

 

[Kramodlog]

They aren't, though.

Let's see. A population that constitute 11% of lawyers and only 3% of them ge to be patners. It would seem they are. And that is just one example.

 

[Kramodlog]

The 11% number is irrelevant

Well lets make up numbers then, cause real ones aren't to your liking.