Reply to Re: Let's talk power
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
I'll reply in paragraph form since it's a little easier to follow. This has been pretty interesting so far, however don't forget that I am simply nitpicking on your claim that these ideologies you've mentioned have no power when they actually do.
Where does this "privilege" you talk about come from then and how does the world come to be in your favour? You state that having the ability to change things is an example of power, but then you state this other thing about those without "privilege" which contradicts it. Power is power regardless as to how supposedly shitty one's life is. The divorced politician who drinks a lot is still very powerful. Are you saying that the fabulous and Muslims cannot enjoy their lives for whatever reason? I don't understand that point.
If a politician or other individual with executive power acts on the wishes of a group who holds an ideology and they implement what those supposedly "underrepresented" groups want, then that is an exertion of power. If they do something else then obviously that ideology won't have power in that circumstance. Power is the ability to change the world around you. We defined this in the beginning. I can't fathom why you'd say that's not power, as you haven't given any particular reason as to why it wouldn't be. You've simply stated that it isn't without giving a reason.
Power isn't inherently black and white in the sense that you either have it or you don't, or that below a certain threshold you suddenly lack power completely. Similar to UNIX permissions, one may have the ability to read and write but not execute whereas another may have the full 777. Simply because one user doesn't have the ability to execute a file doesn't mean they don't have any power in that circumstance to do other things.
Furthermore you seem to continually conflate ideologies with entities and groups by insisting that a person cannot have executive power without being a CEO or similar. For example a CEO works for a corporation which is an entity which is ultimately what contains his power. Now, there is no real physical representation of a corporation like Google. Instead it has people working in it and its own buildings and assets which underpin what Google is. You charge me later on with attacking all Muslims when I am instead criticising their ideology (not that I care particularly since most things are offensive to them). Are you capable of separating one's views from the person who holds those views?
Also in most companies it's not CEOs who do hiring, it's mostly HR departments, but you agree with me that famous musicians and the like give power to ideologies and groups so we agree in that instance.
Then you go on to say a fabulous person's power doesn't count. Who are you to say that a fabulous person's power doesn't count? You seem to be making up rules as you go along that contradict the initial definition we've agreed on. If a fabulous person is exerting power for fabulous causes then it doesn't not count simply because you don't think it does, as power is power. Lots of musicians like The Scissor Sisters and Bronski Beat became popular purely because of their outward homosexuality which they never hid from anyone, and you admit that the fabulous are winning the "battle" (against whom exactly?) which means you acknowledge they have power so we're in agreement.
Also you should learn about Cate McGregor who almost became Australian of the Year this year a long while after transitioning. I wouldn't expect you to keep up with Australian affairs though.
I didn't want to go down this path in regards to Islam since it's not immediately relevant to my point which is that Islam in the USA has a degree of power (which you appear to agree with) but nevertheless, I shall indulge you. Islam contains a lot of things like this which encourage violent behaviour. Prophet Mohammed engaged in a ton of war whereas I cannot say the same about Jesus. The Jihadist attacks that Muslims commit are justified theologically by the Koran entirely whereas one may not say the same about Christianity and Dylann Roof. There's no Christian-equivalent word for Jihad in The Bible, and these comparably minor attacks by Christians are obviously not theologically justified as a result.
Now, the difference between Muslims and Christians (or secular people even) and the violence they commit is pretty obvious by the way you're writing about them yourself. You are perpetuating and blaming these external factors for Muslims becoming Jihadists by suggesting they are "pushed" (by whom?) towards extremism rather than accepting their responsibility for their own choice to shout Allah Akbar and pull the detonator cord. On the other hand, Christians who commit shootings seem to opt for it as a uniquely personal choice without being "pushed". This theological justification is therefore the major difference between Islam and Christianity in how this violence is committed, and shows how different these ideologies are. Therefore one is not being inconsistent if they hold these two groups to a different standard since they're obviously different groups with different holy books.
Furthermore, Pew Research has found that around 35% of Muslims in France support suicide bombings in the name of defending Islam. Do you have any similar statistics showing a similar level of support among Christians for the attacks they commit? Overall, what you're doing is attempting to deflect the inherent problems that exist in Islam that are wholly theologically encouraged and justified by strawmanning with the KKK who are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The acts of Islamic State are global in reach thanks to the magic of Telegram and theologically underpinned by prophecies in the Koran. If you haven't read Striker's link above I suggest you do so as it explains it all very well.
There are tons of rich black people in the music industry as well as in the sporting world, and of course there's Oprah. The Dalai Lama is also quite wealthy since he sells a lot of books and stays in expensive hotels. My point about power is that it may be transitory. If a poor homeless guy threatens The Queen with a gun, then obviously the power dynamic is vastly skewed in the direction of the homeless guy for that brief moment. Just because one does not have significant power doesn't mean they have no power at all (as per UNIX permissions).
Overall we're pretty much in agreement that all of these groups have some degree of power. However you seem to have introduced a few arbitrary exceptions that make certain circumstances "not count" without giving a clear reason why which you may want to clear up. Further up you mentioned that you felt uneasy in Egypt? I'd be very interested if you could tell us all about it as it sounds very pertinent to what we've been talking about.
Where does this "privilege" you talk about come from then and how does the world come to be in your favour? You state that having the ability to change things is an example of power, but then you state this other thing about those without "privilege" which contradicts it. Power is power regardless as to how supposedly shitty one's life is. The divorced politician who drinks a lot is still very powerful. Are you saying that the fabulous and Muslims cannot enjoy their lives for whatever reason? I don't understand that point.
If a politician or other individual with executive power acts on the wishes of a group who holds an ideology and they implement what those supposedly "underrepresented" groups want, then that is an exertion of power. If they do something else then obviously that ideology won't have power in that circumstance. Power is the ability to change the world around you. We defined this in the beginning. I can't fathom why you'd say that's not power, as you haven't given any particular reason as to why it wouldn't be. You've simply stated that it isn't without giving a reason.
Power isn't inherently black and white in the sense that you either have it or you don't, or that below a certain threshold you suddenly lack power completely. Similar to UNIX permissions, one may have the ability to read and write but not execute whereas another may have the full 777. Simply because one user doesn't have the ability to execute a file doesn't mean they don't have any power in that circumstance to do other things.
Furthermore you seem to continually conflate ideologies with entities and groups by insisting that a person cannot have executive power without being a CEO or similar. For example a CEO works for a corporation which is an entity which is ultimately what contains his power. Now, there is no real physical representation of a corporation like Google. Instead it has people working in it and its own buildings and assets which underpin what Google is. You charge me later on with attacking all Muslims when I am instead criticising their ideology (not that I care particularly since most things are offensive to them). Are you capable of separating one's views from the person who holds those views?
Also in most companies it's not CEOs who do hiring, it's mostly HR departments, but you agree with me that famous musicians and the like give power to ideologies and groups so we agree in that instance.
Then you go on to say a fabulous person's power doesn't count. Who are you to say that a fabulous person's power doesn't count? You seem to be making up rules as you go along that contradict the initial definition we've agreed on. If a fabulous person is exerting power for fabulous causes then it doesn't not count simply because you don't think it does, as power is power. Lots of musicians like The Scissor Sisters and Bronski Beat became popular purely because of their outward homosexuality which they never hid from anyone, and you admit that the fabulous are winning the "battle" (against whom exactly?) which means you acknowledge they have power so we're in agreement.
Also you should learn about Cate McGregor who almost became Australian of the Year this year a long while after transitioning. I wouldn't expect you to keep up with Australian affairs though.
I didn't want to go down this path in regards to Islam since it's not immediately relevant to my point which is that Islam in the USA has a degree of power (which you appear to agree with) but nevertheless, I shall indulge you. Islam contains a lot of things like this which encourage violent behaviour. Prophet Mohammed engaged in a ton of war whereas I cannot say the same about Jesus. The Jihadist attacks that Muslims commit are justified theologically by the Koran entirely whereas one may not say the same about Christianity and Dylann Roof. There's no Christian-equivalent word for Jihad in The Bible, and these comparably minor attacks by Christians are obviously not theologically justified as a result.
Now, the difference between Muslims and Christians (or secular people even) and the violence they commit is pretty obvious by the way you're writing about them yourself. You are perpetuating and blaming these external factors for Muslims becoming Jihadists by suggesting they are "pushed" (by whom?) towards extremism rather than accepting their responsibility for their own choice to shout Allah Akbar and pull the detonator cord. On the other hand, Christians who commit shootings seem to opt for it as a uniquely personal choice without being "pushed". This theological justification is therefore the major difference between Islam and Christianity in how this violence is committed, and shows how different these ideologies are. Therefore one is not being inconsistent if they hold these two groups to a different standard since they're obviously different groups with different holy books.
Furthermore, Pew Research has found that around 35% of Muslims in France support suicide bombings in the name of defending Islam. Do you have any similar statistics showing a similar level of support among Christians for the attacks they commit? Overall, what you're doing is attempting to deflect the inherent problems that exist in Islam that are wholly theologically encouraged and justified by strawmanning with the KKK who are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The acts of Islamic State are global in reach thanks to the magic of Telegram and theologically underpinned by prophecies in the Koran. If you haven't read Striker's link above I suggest you do so as it explains it all very well.
There are tons of rich black people in the music industry as well as in the sporting world, and of course there's Oprah. The Dalai Lama is also quite wealthy since he sells a lot of books and stays in expensive hotels. My point about power is that it may be transitory. If a poor homeless guy threatens The Queen with a gun, then obviously the power dynamic is vastly skewed in the direction of the homeless guy for that brief moment. Just because one does not have significant power doesn't mean they have no power at all (as per UNIX permissions).
Overall we're pretty much in agreement that all of these groups have some degree of power. However you seem to have introduced a few arbitrary exceptions that make certain circumstances "not count" without giving a clear reason why which you may want to clear up. Further up you mentioned that you felt uneasy in Egypt? I'd be very interested if you could tell us all about it as it sounds very pertinent to what we've been talking about.
