Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Kramodlog]

Yes, that's the concept I reject.

Reject reality? Meh. Not that surprising in an age where people reject global warming, vaccines and evolution.

but here, where I clearly state the implication of that argument

Nah, it wasn't the implication of that argument. It is something absurde you came up with to discredit a demonstration of discrimination.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Then you think that the number of Asian partners should be 5.6% with normal statistical fluctuations up or down?

 

[Kramodlog]

Then you think that the number of Asian partners should be 5.6% with normal statistical fluctuations up or down?

The real question why you do not think that the number of Asian partners not reflecting the number of lawyers, isn't a sign of discrimination at the top. Do you reject the notion of glass ceiling for women? If not, why reject this "bamboo ceiling"?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Reject reality? Meh. Not that surprising in an age where people reject global warming, vaccines and evolution.

Nice false equivalence, however, you haven't yet established that privilege theory is reality. Do the work.

Nah, it wasn't the implication of that argument. It is something absurde you came up with to discredit a demonstration of discrimination.

So, 3% partners out of 11% lawyers is discrimination. I have your agreement that this is so?

The real question why you do not think that the number of Asian partners not reflecting the number of lawyers, isn't a sign of discrimination at the top. Do you reject the notion of glass ceiling for women? If not, why reject this "bamboo ceiling"?

False equivalence. The existence of one thing does not lend it's reality to something else, even if you phrase it cleverly (and a bit racistly).

 

[Ryujin]

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?

The privilege is the result of 'keeping the other man down', whether consciously or unconsciously.

Instead of taking the top of the heap as baseline I'll accept mean, mode, median...... pretty much any averaging mathematical construct applied to relevant statistical data.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The privilege is the result of 'keeping the other man down', whether consciously or unconsciously.

Instead of taking the top of the heap as baseline I'll accept mean, mode, median...... pretty much any averaging mathematical construct applied to relevant statistical data.

So your baseline, ie the goal to normalize, is that everyone suffers some racism? Surely you can't actually mean that?

Or is it that you're taking baseline to be the average of everyone today? That's not usually how baseline is used -- it means the expected, what things are built to. That would make me much happier if that's the disconnect.

 

[Umbran]

Or is it that you're taking baseline to be the average of everyone today? That's not usually how baseline is used -- it means the expected, what things are built to. That would make me much happier if that's the disconnect.

Baseline is "a line serving as a basis", "a basic standard or level; guideline:", "a quantity, value, or fact used as a standard for measuring other quantities, values, or facts". So, choice of the baseline is somewhat arbitrary.

However, one would not usually use the *top* of what you want as the baseline, though - that's an goal or aspiration, not the baseline experience of people. As a practical matter, it is common to take an average position as your baseline for comparison. When you consider that women + minorities outnumber white men, not suffering under these burdens is probably not the average or base experience of Americans.

 

[Kramodlog]

Nice false equivalence, however, you haven't yet established that privilege theory is reality. Do the work.

You assign "homework" now? I must say I enjoy the irony.

Privilege as already been established. That you deny it doesn't mean it wasn't done.

So, 3% partners out of 11% lawyers is discrimination.

Could be. Underrepresentation can be a sign of discrimination. If only there was an article with more examples showing Asians are underrepresented at the top.

I must say, I find ridiculus how stubborn denial of privilege can get. And I'm impressed how much denial can veer a conversation away from the initial subject to focus on discrimination of a group in one profession. But I guess when a group is losing (illegitimate) power "death throes" are to be expected.

False equivalence.

Why? It seems you do not respect your own (sudden) standard of establishing things. Again, the irony is enjoyed.

 

[Ryujin]

So your baseline, ie the goal to normalize, is that everyone suffers some racism? Surely you can't actually mean that?

Or is it that you're taking baseline to be the average of everyone today? That's not usually how baseline is used -- it means the expected, what things are built to. That would make me much happier if that's the disconnect.

No, my baseline is to demonstrate what the average is, so that variations can be clearly seen from said average. I never said that it was a goal. It's merely a recognition of what is. If one group can be seen to be receiving more than this baseline while another receives less, when adjusted for population, then there's a reason for it. Standard statistical analysis.

And the idea that such a thing would be "everyone suffers some racism", rather than the 'dominant' group receiving the same as does everyone else, demonstrates the very privilege that I'm talking about. Equal opportunity for equal ability isn't racism.

 

[Umbran]

however, you haven't yet established that privilege theory is reality. Do the work.

Well, the word "privilege" has existed for a very, very long time. That we have a word for it is not enough to prove that some form of privilege exists in the world?

After accepting that there are some people who are privileged, and some who are not, it comes down to quibbling over *who* is privileged, and who isn't.

Having higher salaries, not being nearly as subject to police scrutiny, and so on, is not enough to prove that white men generally sit in a place of privilege, to you?

Please, tell us what proof would be required - moving goalposts are not constructive, so we should establish what's called for beforehand..