Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Kramodlog]

Them darned players jumped off the DM's railroad agin!

DMs with disciplined players are the real privilege class!

 

[Eltab]

Boy, we sure are far from the original subject of privilege.

... possibly because the discussion above demonstrates that a major component of 'privilege' is the mindset of the beholder.

Why expend even more time arguing about something when the existing participants won't listen?
(But mostly-lurking on this thread has been an interesting experience.)

 

[Ryujin]

... possibly because the discussion above demonstrates that a major component of 'privilege' is the mindset of the beholder.

Why expend even more time arguing about something when the existing participants won't listen?
(But mostly-lurking on this thread has been an interesting experience.)

That's why I dropped out early

 

[Kramodlog]

... possibly because the discussion above demonstrates that a major component of 'privilege' is the mindset of the beholder.

Or possibly not. Like many social phenomenons it can be quantified. The problem is often the same with conversations about social inequality, some people will just talk about anything but the phenomenon itself. This way the status quo isn't challenged and privileges are safe. It is the same with other subjects like global warming. Talk about the sun, conspiracies by scientists, previous ice ages, etc, but never talk about global warming and current repercussions. And don't talk about what needs to be done to alter global warming. Too dangerous.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Thanks, I'm learning quite a lot from you, here.





Ah, again, thank you for the education. I shall henceforth assume that you are no one, with no relevant information on any issue, until you directly inform me otherwise.


So, then, no answer to the question? Excellent, we can drop this line of argument and move on. Thank you, again, for the education, and for ceding the argument to me despite my previously undereducated status. Very kind (as you note).

I had some witty responses about how you made erroneous assumptions based on analysis of the incorrect variables, which ended up with you reaching incorrect conclusions, but Umbran schooled you already, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I had some witty responses about how you made erroneous assumptions based on analysis of the incorrect variables, which ended up with you reaching incorrect conclusions, but Umbran schooled you already, so I'll just leave it at that.

Sure. I believe you.

 

[Maxperson]

Nobody is saying sloppy resumes lead to productivity. What we're saying is:
1. that a few typos on a resume doesn't automatically mean sloppy, and
2. there's no evidence that a sloppy resume means sloppy work habits.

Nobody is saying that number 1 is true. I've said more than once that there are exceptions to the general rule. Number 2 is just plain wrong. There's tons of evidence. It just hasn't been put into a study doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That tens of thousands of businesses worldwide all have observed that effect and as a result toss sloppy resumes is itself evidence.

Sounds more reasonable.

With that reasoning though, I don't understand why you'd put similar personal reasons over business interests earlier in the process?

I don't. Mistakes on resumes are a general indicator of sloppiness. I'm not putting personal reasons over the business interests at all. I am in fact doing the opposite.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your position, but it's come off as though you'd put extra scrutiny to winnow out resumes with your disliked names.

No. I scrutinized all of the resumes that I've looked over, regardless of name. Sloppiness is not name based

Ah yes, I guess I did leave the resulting scenario for inference accidentally.

My intention was to note that even if she didn't come in for the callback, she and her lawyer would now have evidence showing undue discriminatory behaviour on your part (so long as they were able to show that demographically, the disliked name occurred more frequently in one or more racial group than others), which would make a case against you much stronger.

Her evidence would be very weak. She has no way to know if I had much stronger resumes the first time around, but not the second time around. She has no way to know if I had fewer positions available than qualified resumes. There are more reasons than just name for what she experienced to be true.

 

[Maxperson]

Boy, we sure are far from the original subject of privilege.

It's a privilege that you are allowed to read the thread as it meanders.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Sure. I believe you.

..

 

[Maxperson]

No, your additions would not have to be true at all. That would require the addition of potentially self-destructive stubbornness - for 30 years now in the case of Coca-Cola. You're trying to require Dannyalcatraz's examples to be stronger than they need to be to make his point.

He gave examples that were highly limited in both scope and time. Single companies for most of them, and just a few for one of them, over a span of months to a few years. That's what he's comparing to something that spans the entire globe, deals with tens of thousands of companies, and has been the case for decades. And no, Coke didn't try to sell New Coke for 30 years without going back to the old formula. It lasted a very short time before Coke Classic came back.