I Discriminate

soot said:

I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".



I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

But to argue that "all men are equal" is ridiculous.

I would even go so far as to say that the notion that "all men are created equal" is ridiculous if interpreted broadly enough.

A man who is born blind, for instance, isn't equal to a man with perfect vision, under all and any circumstances.

For certain purposes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against that blind man.

Anyhow, the article certainly places a particular, I guess you'd call it "conservative" slant on the topic, but I would think that you could put a "liberal" slant on it as well.

It's not only perfectly normal to discriminate, but perfectly acceptable, and the idea that all of society should be perfectly nondiscriminatory is fallacious on its face.

I'm going to take a little more pride in my discriminatory nature.

Click to expand...

Lame.

Words can have more than one definition.

dis·crim·i·nate
dəˈskriməˌnāt/
verb
1.
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart; More
2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
"existing employment policies discriminate against women"
synonyms: be biased against, be prejudiced

How exactly is using the first a justification for using the second?

DifferentDrummr said:

To my knowledge, nobody here has tried to deny it. But it still avoids the question of whether an individual stereotypes groups of people. I think this is the type of discrimination under discussion here.

Click to expand...

All bigotry is discrimination yet not all discrimination is bigotry. Trying to impart motive based on observed outcome is in itself stereotyping. Streotypes are general assumptions about most in a group - not absolutes. Saying that women tend to be more caring than men is a stereotype but neither evidense of bigotry nor discrimination.

But you're misunderstanding what people mean by discrimination in this context. You're taking it to mean something much broader than is intended.

By 'discrimination' they do not mean 'differentiating A from B' or 'valuing A more B'. Yes, the word 'discriminate' can be used to mean 'differentiate A from B'. And all people do this. But this is not what people mean when they speak of "ending discrimination in the workplace" etc. They mean something far more specific: discriminating on the basis of race (or gender or sexual orientation etc) in a way that doesn't warrant that discrimination.

A restaurant refusing to serve blacks as an example. There is nothing about a person's race - in and of itself - that warrants this treatment. As opposed to a restaurant refusing to serve an individual who has a history of causing trouble, starting fights or something at said restaurant. Discrimination of the former sort (ie, the kind of discrimination people are talking about in this context) is indeed bad.

soot said:

I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".



I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

But to argue that "all men are equal" is ridiculous.

I would even go so far as to say that the notion that "all men are created equal" is ridiculous if interpreted broadly enough.

A man who is born blind, for instance, isn't equal to a man with perfect vision, under all and any circumstances.

For certain purposes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against that blind man.

Anyhow, the article certainly places a particular, I guess you'd call it "conservative" slant on the topic, but I would think that you could put a "liberal" slant on it as well.

It's not only perfectly normal to discriminate, but perfectly acceptable, and the idea that all of society should be perfectly nondiscriminatory is fallacious on its face.

I'm going to take a little more pride in my discriminatory nature.

Click to expand...

Hey now I admit that I discriminate, if you are Not Stupid, I Love You, and if you are, well then ...........

Alan Watts used to talk a lot on the "double bind" he called it of the command "you must love X"...about how love cant be on command, and when we try to violate humanity this way we can expect nothing but trouble.

THis is exactly what the left does today.

"You must make room for X" is correct.

But the Left always tends to overplay.

They can taste UTOPIA!

After all.

Lutherf said:

I don't know about that. On the whole I think we've been pretty good along the lines of maintaining a society where progress flows from self determination rather than birthright. The one area that we have slacked in, however, is with government. There is little doubt that a political class is forming in this nation though this election showed a small step toward correcting that trend.

Click to expand...

Your society is stratified, just as the British is. Only in the US the layers are identified not by accents, but skin colour. Yes some people of colour do well, one made it to President remember? But for the majority, just being black or latino or asian defines where you will spend your life.

Realitywins said:

Your society is stratified, just as the British is. Only in the US the layers are identified not by accents, but skin colour. Yes some people of colour do well, one made it to President remember? But for the majority, just being black or latino or asian defines where you will spend your life.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. In this country opportunity abound for those who embrace it and I assure you that race has very little to do with those opportunities.

Lutherf said:

That's not true at all. In this country opportunity abound for those who embrace it and I assure you that race has very little to do with those opportunities.

Click to expand...

Are you in the US? If so, clearly you don't pay attention to the news.

You have entirely missed the ideas behind these two concepts:

1. love everyone
2. all men are created equal

Discrimination is normal and natural, and largely not infringed on by the federal government.
It IS illegal if you are doing very specific actions, and discriminating on very specific things.
Those are very narrow, and are designed to allow people to live and work in a society. Which is good and should be that way.

If you want to live and work alone, you can go off the grid and do so. Else, you need to get a long with people at the barest minimum.
-----------------
Love everyone: The meaning here has nothing to do with discrimination. It's about valuing human life. Yes if someone threatens you and yours, you kill them.
The point is, you do not kill them if they were NOT a threat. It's similar to all life is precious. This is one of the pillars of our entire society, of our law/criminal system, of how we approach the rest of the world, etc., etc. It does not mean you need to like everyone, or approve of everyone, it has nothing to do with SJW and anti-SJW nonsense. It goes beyond this philosophically, but I'll stop there.

all men are created equal: this means you don't get to decided who lives and who dies basically. If we have laws, it applies to all. This is the cornerstone of all ethics, the golden rule, treat others as you would have them treat you...equally.

Without these two things, you'd be screwed. Fortunately not everyone has to understand them...

soot said:

I think that a lot of time what is perceived as "the kind of discrimination commonly being objected to" actually runs a good deal deeper.

Click to expand...

It really doesn’t. It’s often misrepresented as a defence (as in this article) and frankly a lot of people who think they’re doing the right thing in opposing actual negative discrimination overreact and present their position poor way. There are also very real complications with our animal instincts and pack behaviour which natural makes us favour anyone “like us” and be wary of anyone perceived as “different” or an outsider.

The underlying principle remains very simple though – don’t treat an individual differently on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic.

soot said:

I would probably behave in a discriminatory manner toward a lot of African Americans… Whether you're Black or White, if you conduct yourself in a particular way or demonstrate what I feel to be a lack of character, I'd discriminate against you.

Click to expand...

It’s perfectly justifiable to treat individuals differently on the basis of their individual character and actions. Where you demonstrate the (albeit subconscious I’m sure) discrimination is when you state that this means you discriminate against “a lot” of African Americans. You’re associating a certain class of bad behaviour with an entire racial group and even if you intend and truly believe you’re only reacting to individual behaviour, I don’t think you can deny that this presumption of an underlying link between African Americans and bad behaviour is going to influence your choices and actions.

soot said:

If the target of my discrimination happened to be African American you'd label me a racist, if the target happened to be a Caucasian you'd probably say, "yeah, that guy is a real "A" hole".

Click to expand...

Yes, that’s part of the problem. People will have a subconscious bias to think a white man criticising another white man is individual but criticising a black man has a racial element. Of course, you’d probably have the same instinct if you saw a black man criticising a white man (especially in already divisive environments).

As your previous comments highlight though, the reality is that you probably would behave slightly differently towards a black man’s bad behaviour than you would towards a white man’s as would out hypothetical black man in the same position. In very simple terms, we’re all racist to some extent. This isn’t about not being racist, it’s about recognising it not acting on it in any negative manner.

ttwtt78640 said:

Actually it is the same - you know who you prefer and who you don't based on (possibly immutable) personal characteristics. The same is likely true, yet perhaps to a lesser extent, based on education, weight, height, language, age, race and religion. This is not unnatural or even morally wrong - look at a park, beach or other large public space and you will likely find self-segregation as "clicks" tend to form of folks with similar interests and/or characteristics.

Click to expand...

So in other words Jim Crow laws and such weren't morally wrong because of "self segregation"?

I don't give a **** who somebody "prefers". There is no right to restrict who sits where on a bus, who drinks from what water fountain, who buys from your store, etc, based on sex, religion, or gender inclination.

Tigerace117 said:

So in other words Jim Crow laws and such weren't morally wrong because of "self segregation"?

I don't give a **** who somebody "prefers". There is no right to restrict who sits where on a bus, who drinks from what water fountain, who buys from your store, etc, based on sex, religion, or gender inclination.

Click to expand...

There is a distnct difference between mandating segregaion and outlawing the right to refuse service to anyone.

ttwtt78640 said:

There is a distnct difference between mandating segregaion and outlawing the right to refuse service to anyone.

Click to expand...

Oh really?

Discrimination was the basis behind segregation.

Tigerace117 said:

Oh really?

Discrimination was the basis behind segregation.

Click to expand...

What is the basis for a "safe space"?

The 1800s called, they want their bigotry and philosophy back.

late said:

The 1800s called, they want their bigotry and philosophy back.

Click to expand...

I think what we're talking about here falls somewhere in between slave ownership and the kind of next generation, 25th century social "progress" that some (predominantly those located in and around major East and West Coast metropolitan areas) would force down the nation's throat.

When institutions of higher learning have to offer grief counseling to young adults because those "future leaders" can't process the trauma of losing a presidential election I think we've taken the notion of progress to far and have begun to circle back toward regression.

I think you and I are on exactly the same page when it comes to chattel slavery, but I expect we have very different views on 20-year-old adults who get a case of the PTSDz from the results of a free and fair election.

In future times, humans who are not my brethren will compete for resources, wealth and power with myself, my children, my family, my tribe, and my nation; and, as has always been nature's way, those most suited to rule will do so. Those suited to serve will fall into their places as well...as they always have.

Computers, political trends, communication, education, and improving technology will never change this simple facet of existence; natural hierarchy is an axiom upon which all life on Earth evolved over millions of years. All human servant revolts have, time and time again, resulted in more masters and more slaves.

I discriminate to give myself, my family, and (when my wife and I have children,) my progeny the best chance at being dominant rather than subservient in the unknowable future; and this is all common sense

Click to expand...

These quotes are more to the point being made by this internet preacher. He is not really talking about being discriminating, which is not a bad thing. He is trying to justify his view that if he comes to belong to a dominant group it is as nature intended. It's his twist on Social Darwinism and is a load of crap. There is no axiom of natural hierarchy that always falls into place.

ttwtt78640 said:

All bigotry is discrimination yet not all discrimination is bigotry. Trying to impart motive based on observed outcome is in itself stereotyping. Streotypes are general assumptions about most in a group - not absolutes. Saying that women tend to be more caring than men is a stereotype but neither evidense of bigotry nor discrimination.

Click to expand...

Stereotyping rarely has anything to do with motive or with observed outcome. In fact, it's usually learned by social conditioning (through family and media).

Of course, stereotyping becomes moot when you interact with someone, then discover that he/or she doesn't fit the stereotype, and then change your behavior accordingly. Problem is, a great many people don't change their behavior at all, ever.

soot said:

I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".

I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

Click to expand...

If I say "you shouldn't use drugs", everyone understands that I actually mean "you should not use illegal drugs nor abuse legal ones" and am NOT actually recommending you never take ibuprofen for your headache. It's the same thing here. When people use the term discrimination in a social context, they are shortening a larger term (gender discrimination, racial discrimination, etc.). No one actually means you should never discriminate based on any criteria for any reason whatsoever.

CrabCake said:

If I say "you shouldn't use drugs", everyone understands that I actually mean "you should not use illegal drugs nor abuse legal ones" and am NOT actually recommending you never take ibuprofen for your headache. It's the same thing here. When people use the term discrimination in a social context, they are shortening a larger term (gender discrimination, racial discrimination, etc.). No one actually means you should never discriminate based on any criteria for any reason whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that's what people meant for a long time.

But I think more and more these days we are moving in a direction where folks actually are thinking that you "should never discriminate based on any criteria for any reason whatsoever".

Think about "safe spaces", "trigger warnings" and the idea that "words hurt".

I'm talking primarily about college campuses, but if we think about college campuses as the cauldron in which future leaders are forged it's really only a matter of time before these ideas start leaving the campus and entering the workplace and society more broadly.

There are places today where I can be charged with discrimination for not "labeling" another person in the manner which they choose to be addressed, or for openly discussing a topic or taking a position which others find to be "offensive".

Similarly, the concept that "every child deserves a trophy" for participating is a veiled hedge against the idea that NOT giving every child a trophy discriminates against those children who aren't "good" enough to earn a trophy. Participation is rewarded the same as achievement.

soot said:

I'd agree that's what people meant for a long time.

But I think more and more these days we are moving in a direction where folks actually are thinking that you "should never discriminate based on any criteria for any reason whatsoever".

Think about "safe spaces", "trigger warnings" and the idea that "words hurt".

I'm talking primarily about college campuses, but if we think about college campuses as the cauldron in which future leaders are forged it's really only a matter of time before these ideas start leaving the campus and entering the workplace and society more broadly.

There are places today where I can be charged with discrimination for not "labeling" another person in the manner which they choose to be addressed, or for openly discussing a topic or taking a position which others find to be "offensive".

Similarly, the concept that "every child deserves a trophy" for participating is a veiled hedge against the idea that NOT giving every child a trophy discriminates against those children who aren't "good" enough to earn a trophy. Participation is rewarded the same as achievement.

Click to expand...

Several issues here: "word hurt". This spews from socialist political correctness. No one intellectually or emotionally mature will be hurt by mere words. One decides whether or not one chooses to be "hurt" by mere words. Socialistic teachings sponsor the theory "words can hurt", where-as they cannot unless one chooses to want them to...or is taught to let them.

"Trophys"; another socialist concept where-in they believe a child's self-esteem is shattered if they don't "win". Which is at the same time hypocritical as socialists abhor competition. This is part and parcel of "social promotion" where-in children are "passed" from grade to grade regardless of whether or not they are capable of being so promoted. Thus we increasingly have young adults being "graduated" but being barely able to read their diploma or add 2 and 4. Somehow some number of generations prior to these last two managed to bring the world further ahead in decades than in the prior 1000 years without benefit of these social engineering retrograde ideas. We must recall, socialism is a theory dedicated to reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator...at which point we will all starve to death at the same rate while civilization collapses around the ignorant ears of the victims of this kind of thinking. One suggests one might do well to discriminate between growing competent, reasonably well adjusted, responsible adults and kow-towing to political correctness gone mad as a hatter.

soot said:

I'd agree that's what people meant for a long time.

But I think more and more these days we are moving in a direction where folks actually are thinking that you "should never discriminate based on any criteria for any reason whatsoever".

Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken.

When people say discrimination they typically mean "racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc.". The fact you only just found this out does not mean the rest of us haven't known this all along.

soot said:

Think about "safe spaces", "trigger warnings" and the idea that "words hurt".

Click to expand...

Those have nothing to do with discrimination.

soot said:

Similarly, the concept that "every child deserves a trophy" for participating is a veiled hedge against the idea that NOT giving every child a trophy discriminates against those children who aren't "good" enough to earn a trophy. Participation is rewarded the same as achievement.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The argument for participation trophies has never been about discrimination. It's always been founded on the idea of helping to improve self esteem. It's an outgrowth of the work Dr. Spock and Dr. Joyce Brothers did in the 60s. Their work paved the way for the intuitive parenting movement which culminated in this child-centered approach to parenting you see today. The focus is on providing an environment that nurtures your child's creativity, independence, and self-esteem. Participation trophies are an outgrowth of this parenting movement and have nothing to do with concerns about discrimination.

The phrase "created equal" to me has been twisted out of truth. To me it means only that one is born in to a life of the unknown. Time then takes over the human existence and minute-by-minute, year-by-year the human condition changes and differs for all proving "equality" is dumped out with the afterbirth. Why are humans born deformed at birth more than any other creature on earth? Equality? Not hardly.

rhinefire said:

The phrase "created equal" to me has been twisted out of truth. To me it means only that one is born in to a life of the unknown. Time then takes over the human existence and minute-by-minute, year-by-year the human condition changes and differs for all proving "equality" is dumped out with the afterbirth. Why are humans born deformed at birth more than any other creature on earth? Equality? Not hardly.

Click to expand...

The idea that all people are equal means that they are of equal moral worth; that the life of the deformed child you speak of is as intrinsically valuable as the life of a healthy person. It isn't about them being on a level playing field and having equality of opportunity.

I discriminate, profile and judge everyday and I refuse to apologize for it.