Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Ryujin]

I would argue that 'white privilege' is a direct product of systemic racism, but would agree that likening the two is conflation. I find people stating that it's the baseline to be rather disturbing. The centre is clearly skewed.

 

[Kramodlog]

No, I have a problem with the concept.

Ok. Privilege is the proper word to use then. Glad this is cleared up. So men, heterosexuals, white people, etc, have privileges, like being relatively immuned from 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?

Nope.

 

[Sadras]

you know that most Muslims live in Asia, right? Most Muslims live quite peacefully in democratic nations that have or have had female heads of state, etc. Iran and the Saudis dont actually represent the "Muslim world"' it turns out.

Does Afghanistan represent the Muslim world? Does Eqypt? Does Nigeria? Does Pakistan? Do all of them together. How democratic are the laws regarding Apostacy practiced in over 20 'Muslim' nations? These are rhetorical questions, I earnestly do not mind how you answer, but please do not paint me out as saying that the Muslim world is just Iran and Saudi.

 

[Sadras]

And because of that you would include the policies of Egypt's secular military regime in Islamic History? By your logic, this means that because some laws were affected by Christianity in South Africa that Apartheid is part of Christian History.

Well I have admitted to that right upthread? Discrimination/separation was very much used within Christian denominations to push their agendas. I did the research and you convinced me.

The Sikh Empire conquered parts of Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire

Thanks will look into it when I get a moment.

Because it is irrelevant. My point is that it isn't Islamic History just because Muslims are involved in an event. Now you seem to believe so. The problem isn't the definition of Islamic History, but that you seem to think that Muslims are always motivated by Islam.

Not in every instance. When state policies which ensure a religion remains dominant and negatively affects apostates and religions not of the same faith - then I personally believe that falls into the history of that religion. It explains why that religion might have remained dominant, it explains why that religion might have grown or why the other reigions in the area diminished. Its fine we can disagree on this point.

But let us look at the reverse. The History of Coptic Christianity - we will look at the affects on the religion's growth including policies made by the states - so why is the reverse not true for you regarding Islamic history?

So your bias is that you feel that every bad thing done by a Muslim must be linked to Islam by labelling it Islamic History, whether or not Islam was a motivator?

No I never said that.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You never answered Ovinomancer's question. What races are we going to deliberately under represent as partners in order over represent Asian partners? Racial make-up only = 100%, so in order to give Asians nearly double their racial make-up as partners, someone else has to be discriminated against. Who do you think it should be?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Why? They are inextricable. White privilege is, in essence, the lack of racist oppression and the attendant inability to notice. Privilege isn't something outside of racism, it was conceived as a tool to study institutional racism.

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.

No, that's racism. Privilege would be that whites don't have to worry about racism.

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.

To be correct, Gates was arrested for lipping off to the officer. While I'll agree that still reeks of racism, it's important to get the particulars correct, else you open yourself to specious arguments based on your factual misrepresentations.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would argue that 'white privilege' is a direct product of systemic racism, but would agree that likening the two is conflation. I find people stating that it's the baseline to be rather disturbing. The centre is clearly skewed.

No, privilege isn't a result of systemic racism, it's the state of not being racially oppressed and therefore not having to think about it. Privilege is the result of not being a victim of racism. Which is why it's a ridiculous argument outside of a narrow look at how institutional racism can persist. There it has some explanatory power in that it suggests that not being a victim inclines the not victim to not recognize racism towards others. It's just a 'you see what you're used to' argument.

As for it being the baseline, I'm worried that you're worried that not being a victim of racism should be the baseline. What baseline would you suggest, in place of that?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok. Privilege is the proper word to use then.

The complaint about privilege being the improper word to you was your argument. I'm super happy to see that, after a number of posts back and forth, that you've decided to disagree with yourself and paint it as me suddenly becoming reasonable.

Glad this is cleared up. So men, heterosexuals, white people, etc, have privileges, like being relatively immuned from discrimination.

Yes, that's the concept I reject. Glad you finally caught up.

Nope.

Now you're arguing in bad faith, as you just answered differently to Maxperson when you said that 3% of partners out of 11% of lawyers is discrimination, but here, where I clearly state the implication of that argument, you've flip-flopped.

So, once and for all, do you believe that 3% of partners out of 11% of lawyers is discrimination.

 

[Kramodlog]

You never answered Ovinomancer's question.

Because it was ridiculus. No one except him is talking about deliberately under representing a race.

 

[Maxperson]

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 couldn't tell a real suit of value from a knockoff. The same goes for fancy watches. I have also known people to invest in a nice suit for church, interviews, etc., but who couldn't afford a car at all. When huge numbers of a race have economic difficulties, it's unfortunate, but the rest tend to be caught up in that profiling.

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.

See my statement above. Oh, and I do dress up when I go looking at cars. I don't want to be ignored while the salesmen go help people dressed up more nicely than I am. Given the choice of white guy in tennis shoes, jeans and a casual button down shirt, or a white guy in a suit, tie, slacks, etc., the salespeople go for the white guy who is dressed up. They profile for economic reasons.

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.

There are reasons other than privilege for all of that. Many black and hispanic people are profiled negatively because due to the much lower economic capabilities of that race as a whole, there is an increased number of gang members and criminals. Poverty is a great creator of crime. Additionally, racial numbers play a role. Black people are approximately 13.2% of the population, where white people are approximately 63%. Given those numbers you'd expect racism to happen much more frequently in the white -> black direction. Combine both the economics and the sheer number difference, as well as I'm sure other factors I'm not thinking of, and you have what you are calling white privilege, but really isn't.