Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Ryujin]

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

Statistics are data. Data makes no conclusions, though conclusions can be drawn from them with study.

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.

I said inequity, as in unfair or unjust, not inequality, as in not equal. If you fail to grasp this simple concept, then I see no need to continue.

 

[Umbran]

If there is an inequity in the rates of cancer, there is not a privilege created for those that have less cancer.

Well, that depends - if you are simply defining "all those who get cancer" and "all those who don't", then of course not.

However, if you find that there's a demographic difference - like poor people have a higher cancer rate - while we might not talk about the privilege of not having cancer, we might well see not having cancer as one of the things that is among the privileges of the wealthy.

 

[Maxperson]

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"?

There is no bamboo ceiling. One profession where Asians fall within statistical variance that just happens to be low at the moment does not a bamboo ceiling make. Especially when we know that they are over represented at the top of business in general. Having more than their fair share of upper management and executive spots proves that there is no "bamboo ceiling".

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..

Privilege exists, but generally not as applied to an entire race. If Morrus gives you the ability to moderate this forum, that is a moderation privilege extended to you. Your examples of white privilege are also flawed. They don't even try to dig deeper into why those discrepancies exist. No mention is made of the economic hardships that drive a larger percentage of the black and hispanic communities to crime, which in turn causes profiling, which results in white people being subjected to less police scrutiny. There are reasons that things happen, and ignoring those reasons in favor of some sort of privilege is not doing anyone any favors. The underlying causes need to be fixed.

 

[Maxperson]

First this:
And this

Are mutually incompatible: you can't profess to use accurate economic profiling if you are unable to distinguish between the various visible hallmarks of economic success. The fact that people are overspending on their clothing (or other consumer goods) in order to conceal their actual wealth is a known occurrence in all forms of mercantile activity.

But to discount those hallmarks out of hand when the person before you is non-Caucasian is problematic for society in general at the very least, and will personally cost you sales as a salesman. So it behooves the salesman that he at least learn the fundamentals of what those hallmarks are- the better he is at it, the better he'll do.

They aren't incompatible. Unless they are expected to ask the person to remove his clothing and watch for inspection, they will not be able to tell a good knock-off from an original. It's pretty easy to get good fakes these days. That leave racial economic profiling as the primary means of determining who is a likely sale.

(Emphasis mine)
See mine. Even when I do dress for car shopping, I get bypassed for the white guy in jeans & sneakers with depressing regularity. They're NOT economically profiling, at least, not with any accuracy. They're discounting persons of color despite having the trappings of wealth.

Right. That's why I gave white vs. white as my example. Remove the racial economic profiling and they fall back on secondary methods, such as dress. If you and another black man walk into a dealership as the only two there and the other guy is wearing baggy jeans and a t-shirt, you'll be the one that they approach.

I'm not saying that it's right to act that way. I'm saying there are reasons (not excuses) other than white privilege for the behaviors.

 

[Maxperson]

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

A fact is not anecdotal evidence. Not one person in the entire world is immune to racism.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They aren't incompatible. Unless they are expected to ask the person to remove his clothing and watch for inspection, they will not be able to tell a good knock-off from an original. It's pretty easy to get good fakes these days. That leave racial economic profiling as the primary means of determining who is a likely sale.

I stand by my assertion: if you can't visually distinguish between cheap and good, or whether the person can generally afford the expensive clothing they're wearing, odds are good you're not doing an accurate economic profile at all.

Because,

1) if you know what to look for, there are many tipoffs that something is fake or if someone is "dressing the part" without having the actual financial wherewithal to afford expensive things in general, and

2) as a car salesman, you're going to have the opportunity to check the person's actual credit worthiness, so judging based merely on appearance, or worse, race, means you are not going to make as many sales as you otherwise might.

Right. That's why I gave white vs. white as my example. Remove the racial economic profiling and they fall back on secondary methods, such as dress. If you and another black man walk into a dealership as the only two there and the other guy is wearing baggy jeans and a t-shirt, you'll be the one that they approach.

I'm not saying that it's right to act that way. I'm saying there are reasons (not excuses) other than white privilege for the behaviors.

The discussion hasn't been about whether same race customers in differing attire get treated differently. Nobody is disputing that.

Rather, it has been about whether well-dressed minorities get passed up by salesmen (as well as being treated less well on average in other ways) in preference for less well-dressed Caucasians. Which they are.

 

[Kramodlog]

A fact is not anecdotal evidence.

But talking about your own personal experience is.

Not one person in the entire world is immune to racism.

And that is not what I said.

To be clear, in the USA, there is racism and it is institutionalized. Caucasians are largely unaffected by the negative aspects of this institutionalized racism. Being unaffected by something negative is a privilege. Caucasians in the USA are privileged from birth simply because they were born in the right family.

Most caucasians won't notice this privilege because for them its the norm and called everyday life. They do not even need to discriminate themselves to benefit from this privilege. You just need to be of the right race and ethnicity. When someone says "privilege doesn't exist, the police gave me a speeding ticket last night...", that person is essentially saying "let them eat cake".

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

To be clear, in the USA, there is racism and it is institutionalized. Caucasians are largely unaffected by this institutionalized racism.

That's incorrect. Caucasians are affected by institutionalized racism. They are positively affected by it. They gain an advantage from it.

 

[Kramodlog]

That's incorrect. Caucasians are affected by institutionalized racism. They are positively affected by it. They gain an advantage from it.

Better?

To be clear, in the USA, there is racism and it is institutionalized. Caucasians are largely unaffected by the negative aspects of this institutionalized racism.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Better?

To be clear, in the USA, there is racism and it is institutionalized. Caucasians are largely unaffected by the negative aspects of this institutionalized racism.

Kind of. You forgot to mention how I'm better person than you.