Just like discrimination against Jews has decreased in pretty much every industry, discrimination against Jews has decreased with a non-progressive component in pretty much every industry too (except for industries that don’t have many non-progressives).
Please name three such industries. If it’s “pretty much every industry,” it should be extremely easy for you.
Also, note that you claimed there exist industries where the reduction in job discrimination against Jews is roughly EQUAL in terms of progressive and non-progressive components. I am very skeptical that any such industries exist and I would like you to name 3 AND show me your evidence that this is the case for them.
Finally, can you even name three American industries which have had a reduction in discrimination against Jews in hiring which reduction was NOT reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians?
Quite likely this is the last time I will ask you for evidence or examples to back up your claim. If you continue to fail to provide them, I will conclude that you have nothing to go on besides your own wishful thinking.
Do you want me to name three with specific evidence for each industry, or without?
The evidence should support your claim, i.e. be applicable to each industry, but can be general in application.
Also, please respond to all of my questions from the last post. If you ignore them or dance around, I’m going to most likely conclude you can’t back up your claims.
The Wikipedia article on antisemitism in America lists right-wing anti-Semitic groups of the past that are disbanded nowadays (such as the Liberty Lobby), and several factors that increase left-wing anti-Semitism, such as greater anti-Semitism among blacks (who are likely to be on the left). The right is still involved in “New antisemitism”, but on an equal basis with the left.
There was also a Republican who appointed a Jewish supreme Court justice and another who nominated one unsuccessfully. I don’t think that Republicans suddenly decided it was okay to appoint Jews because of the progressive movement.
Of course, none of this is specific to an industry, but it is reasonable to conclude that anti-Semitism generally being on par between the left and right also means that it is on par between the left and right in industries. If you refuse to accept a reduction in right-wing anti-Semitism or an increase in left-wing anti-Semitism outside industries as also indicating a similar movement within industries, there’s no way I can convince you.
And the “in favor of white Christians” question is 1) not something I claimed (so asking me for examples of something I never claimed is pointless) and 2) irrelevant. “Reduced discrimination in favor of white Christians” is not necessarily progressive. “Reduced discrimination against Jews and for white Christians, because nobody should be discriminated against” might arguably be progressive, but “reduced discrimination against Jews and for white Christians, because Jews now go in the friend category instead of the enemy category” is not progressive.
The Wikipedia article on antisemitism in America lists right-wing anti-Semitic groups of the past that are disbanded nowadays (such as the Liberty Lobby), and several factors that increase left-wing anti-Semitism, such as greater anti-Semitism among blacks (who are likely to be on the left). The right is still involved in “New antisemitism”, but on an equal basis with the left.
That’s not an answer to my question—nothing here has to do with job discrimination. Besides which, blacks on the left do not necessarily adhere to modern progressive values. For example, there is a lot of opposition to gay marriage in the Black community.
There was also a Republican who appointed a Jewish supreme Court justice and another who nominated one unsuccessfully. I don’t think that Republicans suddenly decided it was okay to appoint Jews because of the progressive movement.
Not an answer to my question, and besides which, you are wrong. Republicans have been heavily influenced by the increased adherence to modern progressive values. Perhaps they are 20 or 30 years behind the Democrats, but, for example there is plenty of support among Republicans for things which came out of progressive thinking such as bans on race discrimination, rights for women etc.
Of course, none of this is specific to an industry, but it is reasonable to conclude that anti-Semitism generally being on par between the left and right also means that it is on par between the left and right in industries
Again, you fail to give specific examples. And you conflate republican with non-progressive. Which in the case of discrimination is simply false.
And the “in favor of white Christians” question is 1) not something I claimed
Yes it is. You implicitly conceded that “reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views” (Actually you tried your best to wriggle out of it but you first implied it and then did not dispute it when I told you I was assuming that your positive response was a response to my question on this point.
So now you are weaseling, i.e. pretending you said something different from what you actually said.
Anyway, you have presented essentially no evidence to support your sweeping claims about employment discrimination. You have failed to produce examples. And now you have weaseled.
I conclude that you have no evidence besides wishful thinking to support your position, which position really is quite ridiculous. Your argument has completely failed to stand up to scrutiny.
In any event, I have my own rules of debate—I don’t engage with people who won’t answer reasonable questions about their position; who refuse to provide examples; or who pretend they took a different position from what they actually took. I’m not interested in engaging people who hide their positions or weasel. So I’m adding you to my shit list.
I must wonder exactly what you expect me to use to show that something or someone isn’t progressive, then, if political affiliation is unacceptable.
You implicitly conceded that “reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views”
It’s consistent with progressive views, but those are not the only views it’s consistent with. It’s consistent with a lot of things, including other, non-progressive, views.
And that’s why I’m very careful about answering your questions: because I know you’re going to interpret them as support for or opposition to views which they don’t actually support or oppose. Confusing “consistent with” and “implies” is an elementary mistake, yet you’re so sure about it that you want to use that as a reason not to discuss anything with me at all!
Please name three such industries. If it’s “pretty much every industry,” it should be extremely easy for you.
Also, note that you claimed there exist industries where the reduction in job discrimination against Jews is roughly EQUAL in terms of progressive and non-progressive components. I am very skeptical that any such industries exist and I would like you to name 3 AND show me your evidence that this is the case for them.
Finally, can you even name three American industries which have had a reduction in discrimination against Jews in hiring which reduction was NOT reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians?
Quite likely this is the last time I will ask you for evidence or examples to back up your claim. If you continue to fail to provide them, I will conclude that you have nothing to go on besides your own wishful thinking.
Do you want me to name three with specific evidence for each industry, or without?
The evidence should support your claim, i.e. be applicable to each industry, but can be general in application.
Also, please respond to all of my questions from the last post. If you ignore them or dance around, I’m going to most likely conclude you can’t back up your claims.
The Wikipedia article on antisemitism in America lists right-wing anti-Semitic groups of the past that are disbanded nowadays (such as the Liberty Lobby), and several factors that increase left-wing anti-Semitism, such as greater anti-Semitism among blacks (who are likely to be on the left). The right is still involved in “New antisemitism”, but on an equal basis with the left.
There was also a Republican who appointed a Jewish supreme Court justice and another who nominated one unsuccessfully. I don’t think that Republicans suddenly decided it was okay to appoint Jews because of the progressive movement.
Of course, none of this is specific to an industry, but it is reasonable to conclude that anti-Semitism generally being on par between the left and right also means that it is on par between the left and right in industries. If you refuse to accept a reduction in right-wing anti-Semitism or an increase in left-wing anti-Semitism outside industries as also indicating a similar movement within industries, there’s no way I can convince you.
And the “in favor of white Christians” question is 1) not something I claimed (so asking me for examples of something I never claimed is pointless) and 2) irrelevant. “Reduced discrimination in favor of white Christians” is not necessarily progressive. “Reduced discrimination against Jews and for white Christians, because nobody should be discriminated against” might arguably be progressive, but “reduced discrimination against Jews and for white Christians, because Jews now go in the friend category instead of the enemy category” is not progressive.
That’s not an answer to my question—nothing here has to do with job discrimination. Besides which, blacks on the left do not necessarily adhere to modern progressive values. For example, there is a lot of opposition to gay marriage in the Black community.
Not an answer to my question, and besides which, you are wrong. Republicans have been heavily influenced by the increased adherence to modern progressive values. Perhaps they are 20 or 30 years behind the Democrats, but, for example there is plenty of support among Republicans for things which came out of progressive thinking such as bans on race discrimination, rights for women etc.
Again, you fail to give specific examples. And you conflate republican with non-progressive. Which in the case of discrimination is simply false.
Yes it is. You implicitly conceded that “reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views” (Actually you tried your best to wriggle out of it but you first implied it and then did not dispute it when I told you I was assuming that your positive response was a response to my question on this point.
So now you are weaseling, i.e. pretending you said something different from what you actually said.
Anyway, you have presented essentially no evidence to support your sweeping claims about employment discrimination. You have failed to produce examples. And now you have weaseled.
I conclude that you have no evidence besides wishful thinking to support your position, which position really is quite ridiculous. Your argument has completely failed to stand up to scrutiny.
In any event, I have my own rules of debate—I don’t engage with people who won’t answer reasonable questions about their position; who refuse to provide examples; or who pretend they took a different position from what they actually took. I’m not interested in engaging people who hide their positions or weasel. So I’m adding you to my shit list.
Goodbye.
I must wonder exactly what you expect me to use to show that something or someone isn’t progressive, then, if political affiliation is unacceptable.
It’s consistent with progressive views, but those are not the only views it’s consistent with. It’s consistent with a lot of things, including other, non-progressive, views.
And that’s why I’m very careful about answering your questions: because I know you’re going to interpret them as support for or opposition to views which they don’t actually support or oppose. Confusing “consistent with” and “implies” is an elementary mistake, yet you’re so sure about it that you want to use that as a reason not to discuss anything with me at all!