Discrimantion vs preference.

[Thurlor]

Discrimination - The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Preference - A greater liking for one alternative over another or others.

In many societies today discrimination is frowned upon if not banned out-right. Yet, how does one know what someone's motive is as it seems to be motive which distinguishes between the two?

Which of the following are acts of discrimination as opposed someone exercising their preference?

1a) Only willing to have a romantic relationship with blondes.

1b) Only willing to have a romantic relationship with others of the same race.

1c) Only willing to have a romantic relationship with same/opposite sex.

2a) Only willing to work with blondes.

2b) Only willing to work with others of the same race.

2c) Only willing to work with others of the same/opposite sex.

 

[just george]

dis·crim·i·nate

/disˈkriməˌnāt/
Verb

• Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
• Perceive or constitute the difference in or between.

The definition in the opening post is political. The political definition is completely bogus, and was created to demonize people exercising their own free choice.


Personally, I think that people should be able to discriminate as much as they like, for whatever reason they like, since the imposition of the political definition on all of our lives creates at least as many problems as it solves.


For example, if I want to hire someone to do a job, I want to be able to pick whoever I like, for my own reasons. I don't want some idiot politician telling me that I have to hire a certain person because they are black or white or asian or whatever. The only thing that matters is my opinion, as the employer, and that's that.

Some people would say that the persons ability etc matters, but nope - it's a contract, so the guy making the offer gets to do what he likes with his money and his business.


That being said, if someone discriminates in a way that the community doesn't like, then it is up to the community to punish them eg if a store owner refuses to hire black people, then black people (or anyone who doesn't like it) are free to simply not go to that store and punish the owner economically.


If a white store owner is happy to only employ whites, and is happy with profits from a strictly white customer base, then as repugnant as that might be to some, it is that persons business, and everyone else who doesn't like it is free to jump in front of a speeding bus.


Living in a free society means being free to be an asshole (so long as you don't hurt anyone during while exercising your assholery).


Sorry to sidetrack, but stuff like this really gets on my nerves.

 

[Solitaire U.]

1a/b/c are sexual preferences, and we all have those. Strictly speaking, they could be defined as 'discrimination' though I wouldn't label them "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

I could define myself as highly (sexually/romantically) discriminating , due to my strong preference for Asian women.

However, 2a/b/c could be defined as 'unjust'.

Where do I fit into that? 2a/b are quite impossible, since I live in a foreign country and thus everyone I work with is of a different race (of the non-blond variety).

2c...I don't openly discriminate against anyone, and actually have a rather strong moral code against the very idea. However, I am aware of a decided personal preference for working with boys over girls (I teach ESL to 3rd and 4th graders). It's nothing so strong as practicing favoritism towards them or anything like that, and the very idea of doing that is absurd to me...

But I'm somehow more comfortable with the boys than the girls. Maybe it's because both my own kids are boys, and I'm simply more accustomed to interacting with them.

But I have also noticed that it goes both ways. The boys in my classes definitely have stronger positive reactions to their male teacher than the girls. Possible reasons; perhaps the sexes simply don't mix as readily in this culture as they do in others. Being 1 of only 2 male teachers at the school is also a major player. It equates, I think, to a strange form of 'auto-attraction' that is probably just natural male-bonding. Kind of strange though, me being, for the majority of my kids, the only contact with a Caucasian male they've ever had. The girls seem a bit put off (perhaps scared) by that, but the boys are definitely intrigued by the oddity of my physical and cultural difference.

My own boys, who are half Asian/half white but definitely with Asian features, also report that the boys at their school are more curious and inquiring than the often 'stand-offish' girls.

I'm not even sure if the above has anything to do with the OP's idea of discrimination, but it's as close as I could come.

 

[Polaris]

I need to define the different forms of discrimination first.

Perhaps not what the OP is looking for but I think a more negative form of discrimination has more to with making negative assumptions based on differences of the OP criteria.

Once the assumptions are tested and tried, one can reject or confirm their validity to within or above a certain threshold percentage. Even then, statistical testing may not be reliable until one has acquired a sufficiently large dataset. The probability of positive confirmation of said assumption becomes higher proportionally to the size of the dataset.

Neutral discrimination would be merely stating the external and statistically "proven" inherent differences between subjects.

Positive discrimination...hmmm, not sure about that one. I avoid these as well. Perhaps someone could come up with examples to convince me otherwise.

Edit: isn't preference based on discrimination, regardless of the quality of discrimination?

 

[Thurlor]

The point I was trying to explain (poorly) is that discrimination seems to be based on motive.

 

[TimeAsylums]

The point I was trying to explain (poorly) is that discrimination seems to be based on motive.

As opposed to unbiased discrimination?

 

[Thurlor]

@TimeAsylums

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

Isn't all discrimination biased?

 

[TimeAsylums]

discrimination seems to be based on motive.

As opposed to unbiased discrimination? (((aka: isn't all discrimination biased?)))

Isn't all discrimination biased?

My comment was saying "Isn't all discrimination biased?"
I was attempting to point out that:
You: Discrimination seems to be based on motive.
Me: (thinking, but isn't all discrimination biased?) Tries to point that out with a rhetorical statement (not mocking) the post: as opposed to what though?

 

[Thurlor]

@TimeAsylum

Now I understand. Also, I never took your statement to be mocking me. I just didn't understand it.

What I need is a list that rationally spells out what is and isn't discrimination (in the negative sense).

Not that I'm expecting such a list from you.

 

[just george]

@TimeAsylum

Now I understand. Also, I never took your statement to be mocking me. I just didn't understand it.

What I need is a list that rationally spells out what is and isn't discrimination (in the negative sense).

Not that I'm expecting such a list from you.

Well, we established that the real definition of discrimination just means choosing between more than 1.

The definition you care about is the political definition.

Therefore, what is "good" and "bad" depends on the politician writing the law, which in turn depends on their agenda.

Let's take a politician who cares about "race equality":

Employer hiring only white people who are good at their job and not brown person who isn't = good for the employer, but bad for the brown person.

Bad for the brown person = bad for the politician, therefore choosing the brown person, against all logic for everyone, is negative.

Let's take a feminist who thinks that women are "equal":

Army recruiting only strong, fit men and not short, weak woman = good for army, good for fit men, but bad for the woman.

Bad for the woman = bad for the feminist, therefore against all logic, this is negative.

Go through the list of issues, and behind it, you'll find one constant: what is positive or negative depends on the agenda of the person deciding how to frame it.

so, to answer your questions:

1a) Only willing to have a romantic relationship with blondes.

There is no pro blonde rights organization. Therefore this is okay, and a matter of "preference".

1b) Only willing to have a romantic relationship with others of the same race.

There are political racial groups, but dont use the language of discrimination. This is about "natural" "unnatural" and Gods Will".

1c) Only willing to have a romantic relationship with same/opposite sex.

There are political groups that care about this issue. However they don't use the language of discrimination. They use the language of "Gods Will" or "Nature".

2a) Only willing to work with blondes.

There is no pro blonde rights union. This one is preference.

2b) Only willing to work with others of the same race.

Anti defamation league exists. This one is discrimination.

2c) Only willing to work with others of the same/opposite sex.

Womens liberation group. This one is discrimination.

Get how it works now?

 

[Thurlor]

@just george

So, discrimination is dependent on public opinion or the garnering of votes?

I can understand that this works for you considering the definition of discrimination you use, but what about those (like myself) who are thinking of a more specific form of discrimination?


I'm not even bringing 'good' and 'bad' into the question as everybody has different notions of them.


I want a single statement that clearly describes what is and what is not discrimination. Meh, maybe I'm expecting too much.

 

[just george]

the word discrimination in the context in which you understand it, it a subjective thing, used as a tool of manipulation by those who would use it, unbeknownst to most people, who wrongly think that it in any way makes rational objective sense.

In short, it has no meaning - its a scam.

 

[Thurlor]

Everything is subjective and no-one does wrong.

I think I'm about ready to give up.

 

[just george]

Everything is subjective and no-one does wrong.

I think I'm about ready to give up.

Give up? That's the spirit

When life gets you down, my advice is to have a romantic relationship with the blonde from question 1a), cheat on her with someone of your own race in question 1b), tell the guy trying to hump your leg from 1c) that you'll only make out with him if he sets you up with a stripper, but don't follow through with the smooching, then make an inappropriate remark to the hottie from 2a), go to work with your cousins in the KKK from 2b) then tell all the boys from 2c) about your escapades while you have a beer and don't for a second worry about this BS anymore