Discriminate: to be or not to be.

[ChainLightning]

I was waiting to see if someone else would start this up. It stems from the 'What to do with Chik fil A' thread.

Discrimination. Discriminatory. Discriminating. Discriminate.

We saw, in that thread, being discriminatory is an awful thing to be. We all know about discrimination - unfair, illegal, oppressive, etc.. In this case, we were talking about some anti-gay group being partially funded by a company in the food industry.

Now, back story complete, I pose this question, this controversy over how one discriminates, is discriminating or what-have-you, is it really an indicator of how prejudiced or bigoted one is? Seriously, being ABLE to discriminate, isn't that a good thing? (Just that these hate groups, of whatever flavor, use it in a negative light.)

Where does the stigma come from? Why is it there? And are we all, really, that superficial that we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, here?

[Denarius]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

When it comes to dating I discriminate against people who are out of my age group, lesbians, and people with piercings.

Discrimination is not bad in and of itself, the people and reasons involved matter.

[orchestrion]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

When it comes to dating I discriminate against people who are out of my age group, lesbians, and people with piercings.

Discrimination is not bad in and of itself, the people and reasons involved matter.

I think having tastes and discrimination are inherently different.
I personally like to date guys who are more masculine than me. That doesn't mean I have any kind of problem with feminine guys. I just have a preference for a certain type.
I think it becomes discrimination or prejudice when it's based on the pure fact that they exist in a certain way, not your tastes. Where it's not "I'm not attracted to women with piercings" but "women with excessive piercings are clearly doing the devil's work" (exaggeration :P ) or "I don't date feminine guys because they're wimpy and too gay for me ew god how I hate them".
So I do think discrimination implies bigotry. Preference isn't discrimination.

[Ophidia]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

I think it depends on how public you are about your discrimination that makes it taste/preference vs. bigotry.

In a way, being bigoted or racist limits the person who is the racist.

My cardiologist is an excellent doctor. He's the board president of Las Vegas' branch of the American Heart Assoc. He's been on magazine covers. It's awesome that he accepts my insurance. He's also a really nice guy, great bedside manner, and I hope he never retires, lol. He happens to be black. To the mother-in-law, it doesn't matter how great a doctor or person he is, what insurance he accepts, or how conveniently located the office is, the sheer fact that he's black over-rides everything else. She thinks he's a quack & keeps trying to get me to go to her cardiologist - an old white guy all the way across town. My dentist? Mexican. My dermatologist? Indian. All quacks to the mother-in-law. She won't go into businesses unless the majority of front-office employees are white. She won't talk to neighbors unless they're white. She loves Disney cartoons, except for Hercules (black soul-singing choir), The Princess & the Frog, Aladdin and The Lion King.

It's gotten worse, the older that she's gotten. I can't help but think that as Las Vegas gets more populous & more multi-cultural, the more her world is shrinking.

[orchestrion]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

I think it depends on how public you are about your discrimination that makes it taste/preference vs. bigotry.

I agree with this. Though I also think it's partly intent. Also how much it effects you on a daily basis or how much it effects your day to day relationships with others(? there's probably a better way of saying that). When it gets to the point where you wont enter a business if there's someone running it you don't like because of such-and-such an aspect of them, that's different than not wanting to date them or be physical with them because you personally dont find a certain look appealing. :P

[ChainLightning]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

Warning! Opinion to follow. *Rant included.



I get tired of the assumption, those generalizations, that being selective or discriminating is inherently bad. As Denarius said, it's about the people and their reasons for being discriminating. How that selective taste is applied. In the case of that other thread's context, the mucky-mucks at the top of the food chain, in that company, have some very wholesome ideals. And in light of those, they apparently donate money to what amounts to a hate group, basically.

I take issue with their definition of "wholesome" and I vehemently dislike their choice of "charities". The discrimination, there at that top level, is really on the up and up, though. They have a traditional view (antiquated would be a better word) of families and relationships. Which is all fine and dandy for anyone to feel that way. The company's problem comes in with their support of bigotry. But that's not discrimination. Calling it discrimination is nothing less than a Fallacy of Composition.

Everyone that selectively chooses companies, in regards to boycotting those businesses because of their policies, is, in fact, discriminating against those companies. That's not an insult. It's not a derogatory term, whatsoever. What *that* discrimination is, is simply NOT funding a company that throws money at a cause "you" don't agree with. It's a GOOD thing.

It can get bad when the discrimination is based on race, religion, creed, color, sexual orientation, hair color or the intensity of one's body odor. Black History Month is discriminating. Chinatown is discriminating. The Catholic Church is discriminating. The Gay 90's (a nightclub in Minneapolis) is discriminating. Blonde jokes and the makers of deodorants are discriminating, too. So are many golf course country clubs. Fill out some gov't issue form and you have to check off boxes for your race/color - discrimination.

There is nothing wrong, at all, with being discriminatory. It's simply in HOW you use it.

Case in point, they don't but just for the sake of argument, let's assume the restaurants refuse to hire Mexicans, Gays, single moms and anyone over the age of 26. That KIND of discrimination they'd be using is illegal. It isn't the discrimination that's wrong, it's what they'd be doing with it. Why do people ignore the truth just to prove their point?

[thalassa]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being discriminatory. Until its done for the purposes of marginalizing others and creating a second class of citizens.

[Denarius]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

Morality is a meaningless concept without an agent. Objects, concepts, words, ideas... These are all amoral.

In other words: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

When a bigot is using discrimination to marginalise someone, the bigot and the action he is taking are the only parts that matter in terms of morality. The action and motivation matter, not the means.

The means in this case being discrimination, the motivation being bigotry, and the action being marginalising someone.

[cesara]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being discriminatory. Until its done for the purposes of marginalizing others and creating a second class of citizens.

This. It becomes a problem when that discrimination is used to attempt to remove the rights of a group of people while the discriminator enjoys those exact rights. It's not complicated, imho.

[Dumuzi]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

I don't discriminate. I hate everyone.

[Denarius]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

^That's discriminating against non-entities!

[ChainLightning]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

I don't discriminate. I hate everyone.

Hey! That's MY line!


:devil:

[cesara]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

My hubby's too! Except he adds, "I don't discriminate. I hate everyone equally."

[Medusa]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

There technically is legal discrimination. I can't fire you because you are black,woman,disabled.
I can fire you because I'm sick of you.

tru story.
It's called 'at will'

[ChainLightning]

Re: Discriminate: to be or not to be.

...
I can open fire on you because I'm sick of you.

tru story.
It's called 'fire at will'

*fixed

:rofl: