Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Kramodlog]

The work that needs doing is showing that it is, indeed, a privilege to not be a victim.

Immunity from something negative can't be a privilege? You said the rich enjoyed the privileged of being immuned from the law. You're contradicting yourself. I guess whatever fits your narrative.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In what way is it a double standard? The rich and and politically connected do not face the same law that I do, not because the law is applied unfairly to me but because their money and power can buy them a more lenient law. That's privilege.

To alter your words a bit to illustrate the double standard:
"Caucasians do not face the same law that I do, not merely because the law is applied unfairly to me but also because their race buys them a more lenient treatment from law enforcement and prosecutors. That's privilege."

There was, at least for a while, a site (or twitter hashtag, I forget which) called "criming while white", in which Caucasians described being let off with warnings, etc. for behaviors which media outlets reported got black people arrested.

According to the US Sentencing Commission, blacks get sentences 14-20% longer (depending on whether probation was involved) for a given crime on average compared to their white counterparts. And blacks were 25% less likely to get a sentence below the sentencing guidelines than were whites.
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/black_prisoners_tend_to_serve_longer_sentences_than_whites

In its weakest form, privilege is a hassle which has many names- "driving while black", "shopping while black", laughing while black". At its extreme, it gets people killed. How many white people worry that they'll be shot dead while carrying a BB gun in the store they're trying to buy it from...in a state with open carry laws?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-suit/
http://www.theroot.com/articles/cul...shooting_by_police_his_family_is_still.1.html

BTW: here is the actual store surveillance footage. It is violent.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/cul...eased_of_walmart_toy_gun_police_shooting.html

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because you consider immunity to be a privilege only when fits your narrative. Immunity is a privilege or it isn't.

I am not immune to racism. I am also not a victim of racism. If I go to Japan, or Korea, or China, for instance, I'm very likely to be a victim of racism. However, by not being there, I am not. I do not have a privilege of being immune to racism. The rich and powerful are often immune to the law.

Example. I have worked before in a classified environment. If I had done 1/10 of what Hillary Clinton has been shown to ahve done(clearly shown, not conjectured or politically assumed, but evidence exists) I would be in jail right now. If I had even had a scintilla of classified information in an unclassified system (this is the evidence clearly shown), marked, unmarked, doesn't matter, I would be extraordinarily lucky to just have lost my clearance. The most likely outcome for just that is jail time. Clinton isn't even charged for an offense that would have, at the barest minimum, cost me my job and at the most likely, put me in jail.

Because it is illegal to have classified information in an unclassified environment. That it wasn't marked, or that you didn't know, isn't sufficient defense for anyone but the rich and powerful. Similarly, if I had done what Patraeus had done, I would also be in jail (that's not even a question -- the outcome would have been prision). So that's not a politically motivated statement, it's just true.

However, if I go to Japan, I will most likely suffer racism for being white. I don't have any special immunity or different set of rules with regard to racism. I just happen to be a non-victim.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Immunity from something negative can't be a privilege? You said the rich enjoyed the privileged of being immuned from the law. You're contradicting yourself. I guess whatever fits your narrative.

I've been entirely consistent, even answering this kind of question the same way multiple times. There's much I'll forgive in spirited argument, but you're not even making arguments, you're just throwing bombs. You cherry pick quotes to respond to and ignore any other discussion present if it allows you to target that cherrypick, misrepresent it, and then attack the misrepresentation. It's fundamentally dishonest engagement.

If you decide that you can quote whole posts, state your own positions, and stop intentionally misrepresenting others, I'll re-engage you. But I'm quite tired enough of constantly correcting your misrepresentations of my statements.

 

[Kramodlog]

I am not immune to racism.

Heh. Anecdotale evidence is not an argument. We've been over that.

 

[Kramodlog]

I've been entirely consistent

And up is down and down is up.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've reconsidered. Carry on.

 

[Ryujin]

Then I would say that your baseline has no merit. Further, if you're relying on statistical analysis, you're usually averaging across the sample to achieve a mean, which would result in everyone suffering some level of racism even if your data has non-victims and victims of racism. Statistics is a poor choice when you can look directly at the data and note who suffers racism and who doesn't. It's pointless to use statistics to achieve a mean state of 'all suffer some racism' so that you can then use that mean to see which people suffer more or less racism when you could just look at the data to begin with. Statistics is just offering the pseudoscience of 'but I did math, so it must be true,' which, come to think of it, is one of the major ways statistics is misused and misunderstood. But that's beside the point.

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. 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.

Unless you're suggesting that the dominate group should suffer racism because the less dominate group does, how is your statement anything other than a restatement of my 'no one should suffer racism' as a goal to achieve? And how would rejecting the idea that privilege = non-victim mean that I show my non-victim status when I say that no one should suffer from racism?

And, of course equal opportunity isn't racism. Where did that come from?

See above.

 

[Ryujin]

Immunity from something negative can't be a privilege? You said the rich enjoyed the privileged of being immuned from the law. You're contradicting yourself. I guess whatever fits your narrative.

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

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Firstly, the dictionary.

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

Secondly, every discipline that attempts to build toward something sets the baseline design at the desired goal and then measures descrepancies against it. I'll admit that you're correct in that some people use baseline to describe the here and now, but that goes directly to my point that privilege theory, if it uses that baseline of 'some racism', isn't a useful tool to correct the racism. Only by setting the acceptable baseline as 'no racism' can you begin to track deviations from that baseline and move to correct them. Setting the baseline as 'some racism' only labels 'no racism' as a defect from the baseline.

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