> there's plenty of evidence to show that being female, being black, being Muslim, and being a communist in the US is more likely to have a negative effect, compared to someone male, white, Lutheran, and Democrat.

I don't think my point was entirely made if you're saying this.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, the premise was that it's a whole lot better to be female/black/communist/non-Protestant in 1980 than it was to be in 1940. The point that I was making was that it was a whole lot better to be Muslim in 1980 than it is to be in 2014 and that if anything, rather than this being some period we'll reflect on sadly like Germany, we're simply returning to the mean.

Tangentially, things are going to get worse for everyone disenfranchised, not just Muslims and those who look like them.

> I don't think my point was entirely made if you're saying this.

There are two parts. First was your statement

> There were a brief few decades in the United States where you couldn't be born the "wrong color", born the "wrong gender" ...

I agree with jwise0, that I can't think of a decade where this assertion was true. It looks like you've toned your original statement.

Second, you pointed to "general sentiment" among Americans.

This isn't a valid basis for making a useful inference. In a hypothetical case where 97% are in the majority and 3% are an oppressed minority, then it's entirely possible that general sentiment is that things are well, while if you ask the 3% they will tell you that things are horrible.

Thus, if all "bad" groups but one - let's say "atheists" - achieve parity, then your analysis, based on "general sentiment", would conclude that things have improved. While my argument is that you have to look to the traditionally-considered "bad" groups specifically.

And yes, tolerance for traditionally "bad" groups have generally improved. I pointed out research which agrees with that statement, though it does comment that atheists are now the least accepted.

That 2006 paper is at https://www.soc.umn.edu/assets/pdf/atheistAsOther.pdf . Quoting from it:

> Atheists are at the top of the list of groups that Americans find problematic in both public and private life, and the gap between acceptance of atheists and acceptance of other racial and religious minorities is large and persistent. It is striking that the rejection of atheists is so much more common than rejection of other stigmatized groups. For example, while rejection of Muslims may have spiked in post-9/11 America, rejection of atheists was higher. The possibility of same-sex marriage has widely been seen as a threat to a biblical definition of marriage, as Massachusetts, Hawaii, and California have tested the idea, and the debate over the ordination of openly gay clergy has become a central point of controversy within many churches. In our survey, however, concerns about atheists were stronger than concerns about homosexuals. Across subgroups in our sample, negative views of atheists are strong, the differences being largely a matter of degree

It does report Gallup polling data which suggests that almost 50% of the US would vote for an well-qualified atheist for President, and that percentage is the best it's ever been. But most Americans would rather have a homosexual president, and acceptance of a homosexual president or any other polled category has increased more rapidly than an atheist one.

> Fun fact: there's plenty of evidence to show that being female, being black, being Muslim, and being a communist in the US is more likely to have a negative effect, compared to someone male, white, Lutheran, and Democrat.

In terms of gender, though, it really depends on the area of life. Women have significant legal privileges regarding reproduction and family law above men, but these also necessarily cascade into negative implications economically (and, I interestingly, medically as well, as both our medical and economic models presume that women are only normal to the extent they approximate men).

Race is far more complicated, and most of the attempted solutions have largely served to dig the hole deeper. I would suggest however that the problems are those of cultural groups with disproportionate economic problems in an increasingly centralized society. This means the problems of race boil down to problems in four real categories borne by communities instead of individuals:

1. Agency: does the community have a real say in how their problems are addressed?

2. Property: is the land of the neighborhood owned by the people who live there?

3. Capital and Small Business: Can people in the community start businesses that the community can support? and

4. Pluralism: Is there widespread tolerance for cultural and ideological diversity in our society.

In terms of race we are sliding backwards on every one of these areas.

Religion, race, and politics can't be so easily separated because they are all things which go together with cultural differences.

Fun fact: California has bonkers anti-discrimination law which is extremely vague, and the ACLU has even run afoul with the Unruh act.

As to "significant legal privileges", I think they should be extended, and offered to men as well. For example, 6 months of parental leave time, subsidized by the state, with 1 month which can only be taken by the mother and 1 month which can only be taken by the father.

The ACLU case when when an on-duty officer in plainclothes decided to attend a public meeting, which had no restrictions, and where there was no requirement to identify oneself or one's occupation, right? I think ACLU staff attorney Lloyd was clearly in the wrong for ejecting the officer. I don't see how the law is "extremely vague" in this case, and agree with the court's opinion that the ACLU's defense was "strained", and if the circumstances were changed slightly would be easily seen as "shocking."

Why do you conclude, based on it's ambiguous? I think the local ACLU chapter was being stupid, arrogant, and stubborn. It happens. We're all human.

Personally, as an ex-long-haired man, it's nice to know that there are laws (in California at least) which would forbid people from discriminating against me solely because they don't like long hair on a man, which is one of the other Unruh decisions.

I can't speak towards your issues that "most of the attempted solutions have largely served to dig the hole deeper." I can only speak about specific issues, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which I assure you did not "largely serve to dig the hole deeper."

In general though, we have different enough view that I cannot have a good discussion on the 3 points that you raised. 1) What does "community" mean, and how is it different than "individuals"? 2) Land ownership is essential only when there are strong property rights. If there are weak ownership rights, such that renters can't easily be evicted and owners have strong obligations towards the renters, then ownership is not so important. 3) why is the specific term "business" elevated over "organizations"? Is it not also important that I be able to start a club or social movement, which members in the community can support?

Point 4) I have no problems with. ;)