You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
I'm sorry it's hard to keep up.
Ah. Casting aspersions on my intellect rather than explaining yourself.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
But opposition in government is not about criticising “a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.” It is about holding the party in power to account, and opposing those policies which you think are wrong or wrong-headed. Yes, and criticising those who support the wrong or wrong-headed policies. That is criticising them for their actions or omissions, not for “the perceived characteristics of some of them”.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
@WhimsicalChristian polygamy isn't specific to Islam of course, many Christians (especially in Africa) also practice it. I don't personally see an intrinsic problem with having multiple spouses - patriarchal systems of polygamy are a problem because of the sexism, not because having multiple spouses is bad.
Sharia law is just religious law akin to church canon law - it doesn't have to be in conflict with civil or criminal law.
Many Christians do not practice it. African christian polygamy takes its"scriptural source" from the Old Testament, ignoring the New Testament which is a cause for significant division globally in the Anglican Communion ( my church).
The problem of multiple spouses IS primarily one of patriarchy and sexism as I don't see any countries or religions where it's okay for women to have multiple spouses.
Given the extent to which sexism is baked into Sydney Anglicanism, you may want to be careful about throwing stones there.
In Nepal, polyandry (multiple husbands) is traditional for women there. Also, modern polyamory involves multiple partners of any gender.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
I'm sorry it's hard to keep up.
Ah. Casting aspersions on my intellect rather than explaining yourself.
I apologise. A weak moment.
If you can explain yourself on which part of my question you are having trouble with in relation to your definition of racism above, I'll try clarify. The question was based on your definition and the association seemed quite clear.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
I'm sorry it's hard to keep up.
Ah. Casting aspersions on my intellect rather than explaining yourself.
I apologise. A weak moment.
If you can explain yourself on which part of my question you are having trouble with in relation to your definition of racism above, I'll try clarify. The question was based on your definition and the association seemed quite clear.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
But opposition in government is not about criticising “a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.” It is about holding the party in power to account, and opposing those policies which you think are wrong or wrong-headed. Yes, and criticising those who support the wrong or wrong-headed policies. That is criticising them for their actions or omissions, not for “the perceived characteristics of some of them”.
Perceived characteristics of some of them was not my wording. It's nonsense.
Groups have characteristics. That's what makes them groups.
@WhimsicalChristian polygamy isn't specific to Islam of course, many Christians (especially in Africa) also practice it. I don't personally see an intrinsic problem with having multiple spouses - patriarchal systems of polygamy are a problem because of the sexism, not because having multiple spouses is bad.
Sharia law is just religious law akin to church canon law - it doesn't have to be in conflict with civil or criminal law.
Many Christians do not practice it. African christian polygamy takes its"scriptural source" from the Old Testament, ignoring the New Testament which is a cause for significant division globally in the Anglican Communion ( my church).
The problem of multiple spouses IS primarily one of patriarchy and sexism as I don't see any countries or religions where it's okay for women to have multiple spouses.
Given the extent to which sexism is baked into Sydney Anglicanism, you may want to be careful about throwing stones there.
In Nepal, polyandry (multiple husbands) is traditional for women there. Also, modern polyamory involves multiple partners of any gender.
I'm not a Sydney Anglican.
As for Nepal or other polyamory? They're not christians. You said lots of christians.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
But opposition in government is not about criticising “a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.” It is about holding the party in power to account, and opposing those policies which you think are wrong or wrong-headed. Yes, and criticising those who support the wrong or wrong-headed policies. That is criticising them for their actions or omissions, not for “the perceived characteristics of some of them”.
Perceived characteristics of some of them was not my wording. It's nonsense.
Groups have characteristics. That's what makes them groups.
And yes thank you, you have reinforced my point.
The problem is when perceived characteristics of a subgroup form the basis of criticism of the entire group.
Such as, for example, when Muslims are portrayed as terrorists.
It's more acute when the perceived subgroup characteristic is of questionable validity or indeed utter nonsense, but it's a problem even when it isn't. It's essentially a logical fallacy:
Z is a characteristic of X
X is a subgroup of Y
W is Y
Therefore W is Z
It's not unlike
All cats have four legs
My dog has four legs
Therefore my dog is a cat.
@WhimsicalChristian polygamy isn't specific to Islam of course, many Christians (especially in Africa) also practice it. I don't personally see an intrinsic problem with having multiple spouses - patriarchal systems of polygamy are a problem because of the sexism, not because having multiple spouses is bad.
Sharia law is just religious law akin to church canon law - it doesn't have to be in conflict with civil or criminal law.
Many Christians do not practice it. African christian polygamy takes its"scriptural source" from the Old Testament, ignoring the New Testament which is a cause for significant division globally in the Anglican Communion ( my church).
The problem of multiple spouses IS primarily one of patriarchy and sexism as I don't see any countries or religions where it's okay for women to have multiple spouses.
Given the extent to which sexism is baked into Sydney Anglicanism, you may want to be careful about throwing stones there.
In Nepal, polyandry (multiple husbands) is traditional for women there. Also, modern polyamory involves multiple partners of any gender.
I'm not a Sydney Anglican.
As for Nepal or other polyamory? They're not christians. You said lots of christians.
I didn't say that you were a Sydney Anglican - the point is that you seem very comfortable to associate all Muslims with specific sexist practices when your own Australian Anglican compatriots are famously deeply sexist.
I said that lots of Christians partake in polygamy, because they do. You said that having multiple spouses is inherently sexist because there aren't any countries where women have multiple husbands - you didn't say that they had to be Christian countries. If the argument is about having multiple spouses, why does it matter if the participants in question are Christian or not?
@WhimsicalChristian I'm confused about what white spirituality is and the contention that we white people have lost it. Are you referring to Christianity or some spirituality that is somehow based on a lack of melanin in the skin? White people are not a cultural monolith and some majority white countries are even majority Muslim countries.
I am concerned with the trend in the UK (or is it mainly England?) to conflate Christianity with British values and law. Jesus certainly wasn't English and British laws have never been entirely based on his teachings. Christianity is for all people, a global religion, and skin colour or nationality are irrelevant. This British Christian nationalism is creeping into Australia too, though thankfully a minority view.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
But opposition in government is not about criticising “a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.” It is about holding the party in power to account, and opposing those policies which you think are wrong or wrong-headed. Yes, and criticising those who support the wrong or wrong-headed policies. That is criticising them for their actions or omissions, not for “the perceived characteristics of some of them”.
Perceived characteristics of some of them was not my wording. It's nonsense.
Groups have characteristics. That's what makes them groups.
And yes thank you, you have reinforced my point.
Indeed “perceived characteristics of some of them” were KarlLB’s words. He said
What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
You replied
So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
The clear implication of your reply is that criticising “a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them” is what opposition in government is about, and I was disagreeing with your implication.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
To the detriment of facts or history have a look at Nigel Biggar's book, Colonialism.
Well, thanks for nailing your colours to the mast.
Hurrah! The wind's set fair…
We sail the ocean blue,
And our saucy ship's a beauty
Nailing my colours to the mast? You mean intellectual and historical integrity? Yes absolutely. You're welcome.
Whether a book exhibits intellectual and historical integrity is largely a matter of perspective.
Nailing one's colours to the mast expressed a defiant refusal to surrender and willingness to fight to the last man, to the bitter end. During the French Revolutionary Wars, it became a propaganda tool.
The limits for nested quoting. It's possible it was something else but, in any event, including 15 nested quotes seems more than enough context for any response.
This appears to have become an extended discussion of race, which would belong in an appropriately OPd thread in Epiphanies (as would a similar discussion about religious minority identity or sexism). Anyone wishing to start or participate in such a thread should first carefully read the Epiphanies guidance.
The limits for nested quoting. It's possible it was something else but, in any event, including 15 nested quotes seems more than enough context for any response.
Apologies, I hadn't meant to include all the nested posts.
I didn't say that you were a Sydney Anglican - the point is that you seem very comfortable to associate all Muslims with specific sexist practices when your own Australian Anglican compatriots are famously deeply sexist.
I think that "when some of your own Australian Anglican..." would be more accurate wording.
Comments
Ah. Casting aspersions on my intellect rather than explaining yourself.
Hurrah! The wind's set fair…
We sail the ocean blue,
And our saucy ship's a beauty
Don't kid yourself.
There's not a lot to 'keep up' with.
Given the extent to which sexism is baked into Sydney Anglicanism, you may want to be careful about throwing stones there.
In Nepal, polyandry (multiple husbands) is traditional for women there. Also, modern polyamory involves multiple partners of any gender.
@WhimsicalChristian your post here can be interpreted as a personal attack. The Ship's rules do not allow personal attacks outside of Hell.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
I apologise. A weak moment.
If you can explain yourself on which part of my question you are having trouble with in relation to your definition of racism above, I'll try clarify. The question was based on your definition and the association seemed quite clear.
@BroJames already answered here.
Perceived characteristics of some of them was not my wording. It's nonsense.
Groups have characteristics. That's what makes them groups.
And yes thank you, you have reinforced my point.
No not that one. Try reading a more balanced review or the book cover itself.
Nailing my colours to the mast? You mean intellectual and historical integrity? Yes absolutely. You're welcome.
I'm not a Sydney Anglican.
As for Nepal or other polyamory? They're not christians. You said lots of christians.
Surely that counts as a personal attack @la vie en rouge ?
Which specific argument in that book do you believe supports your argument?
The problem is when perceived characteristics of a subgroup form the basis of criticism of the entire group.
Such as, for example, when Muslims are portrayed as terrorists.
It's more acute when the perceived subgroup characteristic is of questionable validity or indeed utter nonsense, but it's a problem even when it isn't. It's essentially a logical fallacy:
Z is a characteristic of X
X is a subgroup of Y
W is Y
Therefore W is Z
It's not unlike
All cats have four legs
My dog has four legs
Therefore my dog is a cat.
I didn't say that you were a Sydney Anglican - the point is that you seem very comfortable to associate all Muslims with specific sexist practices when your own Australian Anglican compatriots are famously deeply sexist.
I said that lots of Christians partake in polygamy, because they do. You said that having multiple spouses is inherently sexist because there aren't any countries where women have multiple husbands - you didn't say that they had to be Christian countries. If the argument is about having multiple spouses, why does it matter if the participants in question are Christian or not?
I am concerned with the trend in the UK (or is it mainly England?) to conflate Christianity with British values and law. Jesus certainly wasn't English and British laws have never been entirely based on his teachings. Christianity is for all people, a global religion, and skin colour or nationality are irrelevant. This British Christian nationalism is creeping into Australia too, though thankfully a minority view.
Indeed “perceived characteristics of some of them” were KarlLB’s words. He said You replied The clear implication of your reply is that criticising “a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them” is what opposition in government is about, and I was disagreeing with your implication.
You are not the only one to have weak moments @WhimsicalChristian.
Nailing one's colours to the mast expressed a defiant refusal to surrender and willingness to fight to the last man, to the bitter end. During the French Revolutionary Wars, it became a propaganda tool.
I think you might have found the limit.
My post didn't look like it'd gone through then suddenly it did so repeatedly.
Apologies for that.
Doublethink, Admin
Apologies, I hadn't meant to include all the nested posts.
And thanks for the reminder too, @Doublethink.
I think that "when some of your own Australian Anglican..." would be more accurate wording.