Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Kramodlog]

It's pretty simple to flip the narrative on that little item. It's not relative immunity from a negative; it's a higher chance of a positive outcome. THAT is privilege

Yes, but then Ovi's "counter argument", would be something like "having a higher chance of racism isn't positive".

 

[Ovinomancer]

Taking a statistical mean in no way effects the individual's experience. It inflicts nothing on the subjects. It simply states what it is; the mean.

If you're interested in an individual's experience, then, as I said, you don't need any statistics at all, you only need look at the data. You only use statistics if you want to look at the aggregate. Since you want to use statistics, then you have to look at the aggregate, and the mean value for your baseline is 'some racism'. That this is nonsensical when applied to individuals is my point.

Further, using a statistical mean to define your baseline leads exactly to the state of declaring non-victims to be expectional and needing a label to explain why they don't fit the statistical baseline -- hence the emergence of privilege as a term. But when you look at individuals again, this quickly becomes meaningless because you have victims and not victims. If you insist on using your statistically determined mean and exceptions to the individuals, you end up with the silliness of labeling those that are not victims as privileged to be not victims. That's fundamentally my point -- that kind of analysis doesn't lead to truth, and in fact obscures truth. It's actively harmful.

The lawyers vs. partners thing, for example. (pulling numbers out of my butt for the sake of an example) It if on average 10 out of every 100 lawyers reaches the level of partner and the distribution of White to Black lawyers is 50/50, but 8 out of every 10 partners is White, that's a very significant thing to look at. One would presume that, all other factors being equal, the distribution of partners would also be equal; 5 out of 10. If study of that data shows an inequity and that inequity is addressed, that in no way inflicts racism upon the Whites in the group.

That's statistics, in application.

Yes, it's a very basic application of statistics. And it is suggestive, but statistics can never, ever show causation. What you've done is substitute people for a parameterization of people -- you've simplified them to black or white. You've then run analysis based not on people but on your parameter of people, and found something. That may be useful (and, in this case, I'd agree bears more investigation), but you've lied to yourself if you think the result that is true for your parameterization is also true when you consider real people. That's the lie buried in statistics. It's only useful if you remember to treat it as a dog that bites.

But, all that said and agreed to, your example isn't comparable to the issues of whether or not being white is a privilege, and no amount of statistical jargoning will end up with it being rational to it a privilege to not be a victim. In your case above, the white people that take the positions of blacks that are unfairly discriminated against are not privileged, the blacks instead are victims. That you can squint and pretend that their is some kind of extra benefit to being white doesn't hold with the actuality is that it's not one side having more, it's one side getting less.

I'm not arguing that racism doesn't exist, or that it doesn't manifest in ways that superficially appear to favor whites. I'm instead arguing that such a thing isn't a white privilege, it's a harm against those discriminated. When you isolate to zero sum games, like your lawyer example, one person losing must equal another person winning. But the driver here is making people lose through racism, not making people win through existing.

It's pretty simple to flip the narrative on that little item. It's not relative immunity from a negative; it's a higher chance of a positive outcome. THAT is privilege

You realize that fails pretty quickly. If I have four aces in a poker hand, am I privileged? Perhaps if I position myself to perfectly receive a cross in front of the goal (soccer reference), am I privileged? Maybe I work hard and go to school and get a degree, does that make me privileged?

I note that you seem to be not shot today. Does that make you privileged over people that have been shot?

My answer to all of these rhetoricals (because I believe it to be in good faith to provide an answer to a rhetorical) is: no.

My underlying and unwaivering point is that it is not a privilege to not be a victim.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You may have misunderstood the definition if that is the case. Could you post up what definition you are using?

I'd rather not do dictionary games. Instead, I fully grant that your use of baseline is also correct.

You're not understanding what a baseline is or what it is used for.

I use them every day. They are what I build and measure towards. But the fun thing is that any deviation from baseline is considered to be exceptional and in need of remedy, even if it is an presumed improvement. This is because the baseline is the agreed upon deliverable, and any deviation introduces unknown change to operation. So perhaps I'm more influenced by my daily use of baseline than others would be.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I'd rather not do dictionary games. Instead, I fully grant that your use of baseline is also correct.


I use them every day. They are what I build and measure towards. But the fun thing is that any deviation from baseline is considered to be exceptional and in need of remedy, even if it is an presumed improvement. This is because the baseline is the agreed upon deliverable, and any deviation introduces unknown change to operation. So perhaps I'm more influenced by my daily use of baseline than others would be.

Ah... I see where you're having the issue. Your use of baseline indicates where you want to get to. Baseline, specially in the social sciences, indicates where you're starting from. So in this case, the baseline would not be no racism. It's your starting point. Is the starting point no racism? No, it isn't. It would have to be that there is a level of racism because unfortunately that is the reality of life. What that average level is, I don't know.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ah... I see where you're having the issue. Your use of baseline indicates where you want to get to. Baseline, specially in the social sciences, indicates where you're starting from. So in this case, the baseline would not be no racism. It's your starting point. Is the starting point no racism? No, it isn't. It would have to be that there is a level of racism because unfortunately that is the reality of life. What that average level is, I don't know.

Yup, I use baseline as the thing I want to measure against. On this issue, the thing I want to measure against is my goal -- no more racism. So I set that as my baseline, and measure against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in social science you usually use the baseline to determine deviations from the norm, not as a means to effect change, yes?

Also, thanks for allowing the graceful walkback.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Yup, I use baseline as the thing I want to measure against. On this issue, the thing I want to measure against is my goal -- no more racism. So I set that as my baseline, and measure against it.

Right, so it may be an issue of identifying the variables. So, you have your dependent and independent variables. The dependent variable is what you're measuring. The independent variable is the one that you manipulate. So, if we're looking at the topic of racism, we first have to figure out what we are measuring. What you are measuring is racism. You can't measure the lack of something. It's as if I gave you the task of measuring something that is not currently happening. So, we would measure racism. That's our dependent variable. Our independent variable is what we are manipulating. In this case, it would be the race of an individual or group.

If we were to quantify racism, in your version it may look something like this:

No racism = 0
Max racism = 1
0-----------------------------------1

Assuming that every race feels some kind of racism, you would get something along the lines of this.

White
0------I-----------------------------1
White racism score = .17

Black
0-------------------------I----------1
Black racism score = .67

However, that isn't how racism would be measured in the social science. The baseline is the average. Deviations from the baseline are measured in standard deviations. It would go from-1 to +1. -1 would indicate that this particular race encounter racism 0% of the time, and +1 would indicate that this particular race encounters racism 100% of the time. So the baseline would be at zero. That is where we start from. You either encounter more racism than average, or you encounter less racism than average, depending on your race.

White
-1-----------------------------------0-----------------------------------1

Black
-1-----------------------------------0-----------------------------------1

Where you land on that scale determines the level of racism you encounter compared to the average.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in social science you usually use the baseline to determine deviations from the norm, not as a means to effect change, yes?

That is correct; however, baseline is used to determine if a particular intervention has had any effect. If you were to design an intervention to treat depression, you would want to know how effective that intervention is. If you start off by conceptualizing your baseline as being not depressed, the measure you'll get from your intervention is how depressed are you compared to not being depressed at all. That isn't going to tell us how effective this intervention was. You need a starting point. How depressed were you to start with? Are you actually less depressed after the intervention? the only way to find out is to measure how depressed you are before the intervention.

Also, thanks for allowing the graceful walkback.

Sometimes I like to teach. I rather take those opportunities to teach others something instead of trolling. But don't get me wrong, there is still a chance that I'll just troll you. To be sure, I think you need to take a baseline measure.

 

[Ryujin]

If you're interested in an individual's experience, then, as I said, you don't need any statistics at all, you only need look at the data. You only use statistics if you want to look at the aggregate. Since you want to use statistics, then you have to look at the aggregate, and the mean value for your baseline is 'some racism'. That this is nonsensical when applied to individuals is my point.

Further, using a statistical mean to define your baseline leads exactly to the state of declaring non-victims to be expectional and needing a label to explain why they don't fit the statistical baseline -- hence the emergence of privilege as a term. But when you look at individuals again, this quickly becomes meaningless because you have victims and not victims. If you insist on using your statistically determined mean and exceptions to the individuals, you end up with the silliness of labeling those that are not victims as privileged to be not victims. That's fundamentally my point -- that kind of analysis doesn't lead to truth, and in fact obscures truth. It's actively harmful.

The statistics make no conclusions, so racism isn't an issue within them. The statistics suggest areas to investigate and looking at raw numbers, without understanding context, is meaningless. Furthermore such investigation does nothing to harm people on the high end, but rather creates a situation in which the playing field may be levelled.

When there is inequity, in favour of a specific group, there is privilege.

Yes, it's a very basic application of statistics. And it is suggestive, but statistics can never, ever show causation. What you've done is substitute people for a parameterization of people -- you've simplified them to black or white. You've then run analysis based not on people but on your parameter of people, and found something. That may be useful (and, in this case, I'd agree bears more investigation), but you've lied to yourself if you think the result that is true for your parameterization is also true when you consider real people. That's the lie buried in statistics. It's only useful if you remember to treat it as a dog that bites.

But, all that said and agreed to, your example isn't comparable to the issues of whether or not being white is a privilege, and no amount of statistical jargoning will end up with it being rational to it a privilege to not be a victim. In your case above, the white people that take the positions of blacks that are unfairly discriminated against are not privileged, the blacks instead are victims. That you can squint and pretend that their is some kind of extra benefit to being white doesn't hold with the actuality is that it's not one side having more, it's one side getting less.

I haven't used the term 'victims'; you have. I also have not stated that statistics show causation. I have stated, explicitly, that they suggest areas for investigation, more than once. I have also mentioned the idea of comparing like samples, with many triangulating points, rather than wholesale analysis. You may have missed that.

You comment on "whether or not being white is a privilege." That isn't quite what this discussion is about. It's a subtle tweak to the running commentary that deflects from the actual discussion.

I'm not arguing that racism doesn't exist, or that it doesn't manifest in ways that superficially appear to favor whites. I'm instead arguing that such a thing isn't a white privilege, it's a harm against those discriminated. When you isolate to zero sum games, like your lawyer example, one person losing must equal another person winning. But the driver here is making people lose through racism, not making people win through existing.

What you're arguing about is the air space above the water, in the half-full glass. Seen from the viewpoint of those it has an effect upon, it's privilege.

You realize that fails pretty quickly. If I have four aces in a poker hand, am I privileged? Perhaps if I position myself to perfectly receive a cross in front of the goal (soccer reference), am I privileged? Maybe I work hard and go to school and get a degree, does that make me privileged?

Random chance or skill. Not applicable to the discussion at hand. Perhaps you never get to stand in front of the goal, because you aren't Brazilian? Perhaps you work hard and get a (law?) degree, then are denied a partnership because you aren't the right colour, don't have the right accent, or practice the wrong religion? Country clubs, anyone?

I note that you seem to be not shot today. Does that make you privileged over people that have been shot?

It might. It might not. What are the statistics?

My answer to all of these rhetoricals (because I believe it to be in good faith to provide an answer to a rhetorical) is: no.

My underlying and unwaivering point is that it is not a privilege to not be a victim.

And my point is that when you're in the gutter, everything else is up. It's easy to say that 'white privilege' doesn't exist, when you have it.

 

[Ryujin]

Yup, I use baseline as the thing I want to measure against. On this issue, the thing I want to measure against is my goal -- no more racism. So I set that as my baseline, and measure against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in social science you usually use the baseline to determine deviations from the norm, not as a means to effect change, yes?

Also, thanks for allowing the graceful walkback.

Your assumption, in this discussion, is that what Whites get involves no racism and is, therefore, the baseline. That is not the case. In the tolerances of manufacturing at +/- 0.05% a value of +0.05% is as far out as -0.05%.

*EDIT* To clarify you cannot measure racism. You can, however, measure it's effects in a system.

 

[Kramodlog]

In your case above, the white people that take the positions of blacks that are unfairly discriminated against are not privileged, the blacks instead are victims. That you can squint and pretend that their is some kind of extra benefit to being white doesn't hold with the actuality is that it's not one side having more, it's one side getting less.

If one side gets less, it is because one side gets more. They aren't separated. If discrimination is there to make sure one side gets less, it is to make sure one side gets more.

I'm not arguing that racism doesn't exist, or that it doesn't manifest in ways that superficially appear to favor whites. I'm instead arguing that such a thing isn't a white privilege, it's a harm against those discriminated. When you isolate to zero sum games, like your lawyer example, one person losing must equal another person winning. But the driver here is making people lose through racism, not making people win through existing.

Actually no. It is about making some people "win" through racism and sexism. To have "winners" you need "losers". Things that are pretty much determined at birth when it comes to race and gender.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The statistics make no conclusions, so racism isn't an issue within them. The statistics suggest areas to investigate and looking at raw numbers, without understanding context, is meaningless. Furthermore such investigation does nothing to harm people on the high end, but rather creates a situation in which the playing field may be levelled.

I fail to grasp your understanding of statistics that make no conclusion, but create situations in which playing fields may be leveled.

When there is inequity, in favour of a specific group, there is privilege.

I pointedly disagree that that is a viable definition of privilege. It's easily shown false if you consider something like cancer. If there is an inequity in the rates of cancer, there is not a privilege created for those that have less cancer.

Or height. Or skin color. Or any number of things which can be unequal. My favorite may be intelligence -- is one privileged for having a high IQ?

I haven't used the term 'victims'; you have.

So people are not victims of racism? (Again, to answer my rhetorical, yes, of course they are.) This is a pointless evasion.

I also have not stated that statistics show causation. I have stated, explicitly, that they suggest areas for investigation, more than once. I have also mentioned the idea of comparing like samples, with many triangulating points, rather than wholesale analysis. You may have missed that.

You comment on "whether or not being white is a privilege." That isn't quite what this discussion is about. It's a subtle tweak to the running commentary that deflects from the actual discussion.

The discussion is currently on white privilege. What, then, would you say it's about if not whites having privilege?

(That one's not rhetorical.)

What you're arguing about is the air space above the water, in the half-full glass. Seen from the viewpoint of those it has an effect upon, it's privilege.

That's a ridiculous definition of privilege. If the answer to being put upon is to think that it's all because the not-put upon have a special privilege, then you're fooling yourself about the actual causes and are not going to make progress.

Random chance or skill. Not applicable to the discussion at hand. Perhaps you never get to stand in front of the goal, because you aren't Brazilian? Perhaps you work hard and get a (law?) degree, then are denied a partnership because you aren't the right colour, don't have the right accent, or practice the wrong religion? Country clubs, anyone?

Your statement was: "It's not relative immunity from a negative; it's a higher chance of a positive outcome. THAT is privilege." How, then, do my examples of higher chances of positive outcomes not become privilege? (Again, answer is that they aren't privilege because that's a ridiculous definition of privilege.)

It might. It might not. What are the statistics?

10 people were shot today. The total population is 315 million. You were not shot. Discuss your privilege. How did it occur? What do you need to check to understand how your privilege affect others?

And my point is that when you're in the gutter, everything else is up. It's easy to say that 'white privilege' doesn't exist, when you have it.

Ding! Another point for 'it doesn't matter what you say, if you're deemed to have privilege, you can't argue against privilege theory because privilege theory says that you would do so and not know." Please, credit me with the ability to be aware. You have no idea the circumstances of my life, nor the way I live it day to day. You have no ability to say that I'm not keenly aware of racism. Privilege theory just gives you the false moral pretense to claim that my whiteness makes me blind.

Your assumption, in this discussion, is that what Whites get involves no racism and is, therefore, the baseline. That is not the case. In the tolerances of manufacturing at +/- 0.05% a value of +0.05% is as far out as -0.05%.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we were talking about manufacturing. I wasn't, were you? If not, then why on Earth would a manufacturing acceptable measurement tolerance be relevant? (Answer: it's not.)

*EDIT* To clarify you cannot measure racism. You can, however, measure it's effects in a system.

Really? How would you measure the effects of racism in a system?