Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Kramodlog]

Given how this thread was about persecution and is now about race, this article about a USian black man demanding refugee status in Canada because he fears the police will kill him should be appropriate. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...anty-seeks-refugee-status-in-canada-1.3286707

Interestingly enough, Canada takes about 10 USian refugees a year.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Many of the schools these kids go to are underfunded, making learning there difficult for the best of students, much less the mediocre ones.

In the mid-1970s, I had the misfortune of attending summer school in an economically depressed area. The history book I was issued stopped with the ongoing US activities in the war...in Korea.

Math might not change much over time, but other subjects are more volatile.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Math might not change much over time, but other subjects are more volatile.

Math may not change, but the level of math you may learn, and the quality of math instruction can certainly vary.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Indonesia would be the best pick, since it has the world's largest Muslim population.

But in the end, even they don't work, because Muslims are much too diverse a group to lump together in any way other than "people who follow Islam, to some degree or other."

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?

White ppl are over represented pretty much everywhere, we can take it.

Also, most of the world's people are Asian. No other group even comes close. Just saying. Asians may have been a bad example.


Also, ITT I learned that some white people will literally come up with anything in order to deny that their privilege exists.

Meanwhile, the mountain of evidence supporting it's existence is crushing everyone else under it's enormous weight.

I'm done with this whole thread. If you don't think that white people have privilege, you are intentionally being dishonest with yourself, and you need a damn education. Sadly, we haven't invented a way to make someone live another person's life in a fully immersive virtual environment yet, and i suspect that may literally be the only way some white people would ever let themselves acknowledge their position in the world, and how undeserved it is.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm done with this whole thread.

Some friendly advice: while I understand your frustration, it is probably best if you edit your post's conclusion to just what I quoted- the rest comes off as a bit confrontational & personal.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

Assuming the root cause is not based on actual merit, correcting an imbalance isn't discrimination, it is ending an injustice.

IOW, if all partner candidates are roughly equivalent overall, but there is a gross disparity in the demographics of those chosen in favor of white male candidates, a subsequent correction of this imbalance isn't discrimination against white male candidates, it is ending the undeserved bias in their favor.

 

[Maxperson]

You seem to ignore many other factors in this statement. Many of the schools these kids go to are underfunded, making learning there difficult for the best of students, much less the mediocre ones. Moreover, many of them are in questionable economic positions - they may have the choice of staying in school, or trying to do something so their family has food, clothing, and a roof over their heads.

Maybe not "forced," but, "coerced," might be appropriate.

And remember, we are talking about *KIDS*. Not adults with large amounts of insight built up over years. The choices are being made by 12 to 15 year olds.

People that poor qualify for welfare and other programs to pay for food and a roof over their head. The parents also often don't insist that the kids go back to school and/or agree with the decision to drop out. Schooling isn't as high of a priority as it should be.

 

[Maxperson]

Is that because everyone realizes we shouldn't do so, or because those billionaires dump lots of money into the political process to protect them?

In other nations (most of Europe, for example), those who produce wealth are asked to do a lot more for the poor - typically by taxation, and by not having such a wild disparity in top and bottom pay scales in the first place. And it works out okay for them.

They also don't spend much on the military and then need the US to bail them out when a military presence is needed for whatever reason. The systems used in Europe have advantages, but also disadvantages. I'd rather live here than there.

And, in history, well, tell Marie Antoinette that we don't hold the rich responsible - though admittedly that was more the rich being held accountable, rather than responsible.

That doesn't happen often and many people were killed or imprisoned in that revolution that didn't deserve to die or be imprisoned. It wasn't just the rich that were held accountable, the rich created the situation that ignited.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't know I was supposed to be self-serving.

Sure you did. You wrote something and what you said caused me to write something. At least it is one of the things that caused my writing.

A cause doesn't involve choice in the part of any other person. If I pick up a rock and throw it, I caused it to fly through the air. If the rock then breaks a window, I caused the window to break. However, if I pick up a rock and throw it five feet and you then decide to throw a rock through a window, I did not cause you to do so. Nothing forced you to pick up that rock and throw it. You had choice, so it's 100% on you.

 

[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"?

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..

Wait. You say the rich have a relative immunity from the law and that is a privilege, but you deny that white people who enjoy a relative immunity from racial discrimination is a privilege?

That is a double standard.

Statistically - while this study is from 2003, it demonstrates one methodology that could be used: Send out a bunch of resumes that are *identical*, except for the name at the top. Give some "white" names, and others names more likely associated with various racial minorities. See which ones get more callbacks.

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

You can do the same for traditionally male and female names:

"Moss-Racusin wanted to figure out if faculty at academic institutions, despite their training in conducting scientifically objective research, held implicit gender biases that were disadvantaging women who were pursuing STEM careers.

In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John."

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

That doesn't show racial bias. It shows name bias. I dislike names like Shaniqua and other similar names and would not call back resumes with names like that. I also dislike Hawaiian sounding names which are often given to white people, or Russian names which belong overwhelmingly to white people. Give me names like Robin, Rhonda, George, James and so on, but put on those resumes the race of the individual and you will find no racial bias at all.

Judging by name =/= judging by race and using name bias to measure racial bias is going to produce fatally flawed results.