Tolerating discirmination

[KarateCowboy]

Discrimination:

1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Yes it is true, activists have corrupted the meaning of the word. If you look in an older dictionary there is no such thing. Educated people know this. The word comes from Latin discriminare which means to divide. Often times people try to abuse language for political purposes like in the book 1984 with Newspeak. A basic language education is a good tool for testing. Some people do not have it and are thus unable to discriminate. A good proof in this situation is to add the prefix 'in' to the word. "Indiscriminate". Just as the symbol " - " in mathematics means opposite, so the prefix 'in' means "not" and when added to a word means, basically, the opposite. Just as "-3" is the opposite of "3", if we suppose that "discriminate" means unfair and unjust treatment, we would expect "indiscriminate" to mean "fair and just treatment without considering race, sex, etc". However when we look in the dictionary we see that is not the case. The use of "discriminate" in the manner you describe, linguistically, is an huge failure to think clearly. It is a foolish inconsistency to say the opposite of "discriminate" is "equality" when in fact the opposite of "equality" is "inequality". It just makes no sense. All I want is clarity here, you know. Corrupting the meaning of words by blindly repeating a false use of a word until it becomes accepted not only obfuscates the language, but is implicitly anti-intellectual.

So what is a good solution? I should offer one, as it would be unfair for me to criticize without offering a way to fix things. Well, the English language does not really need any new words. It is one of the richest languages in the world, and that is why it is called the language of poets. I recommend the word "inequity"

 

[cantata]

Nevertheless, the use of the term "discriminate" in the OP is not incorrect. Language changes, as you say, and it is now a legitimate usage.

(By the way, the opposite of "discriminate" could never be "equality" because the former is a verb and the latter is a noun.)

 

[Chesterton]

Freedom to be a bigot?

Yes, or even a socialist.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Yes, or even a socialist.

Boy, one would almost think you didn't support anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Chesterton]

Boy, one would almost think you didn't support anti-discrimination laws.

I guess I probably do support anti-discrimination laws (excluding affirmative action and "hate crimes" laws), but I just think we need to be careful about how much we let governments tell us what we can and can't do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes it is true, activists have corrupted the meaning of the word. If you look in an older dictionary there is no such thing. Educated people know this.

And if you look at the older dictionaries, you see that "man" was originally gender-neutral. So what? The English language evolves, as do all languages. This is true for the word "discirmintion" as well.

The word comes from Latin discriminare which means to divide. Often times people try to abuse language for political purposes like in the book 1984 with Newspeak. A basic language education is a good tool for testing. Some people do not have it and are thus unable to discriminate.

How ironic. But you yourself seem unable to discriminate between a corruption of a word for political gain, and a genuine linguistic shift.

A good proof in this situation is to add the prefix 'in' to the word. "Indiscriminate". Just as the symbol " - " in mathematics means opposite, so the prefix 'in' means "not" and when added to a word means, basically, the opposite. Just as "-3" is the opposite of "3", if we suppose that "discriminate" means unfair and unjust treatment, we would expect "indiscriminate" to mean "fair and just treatment without considering race, sex, etc".

First, your treatment of mathematics is painful to my eyes. I'd go so far as to say you are abusing mathematical terminology for your own gain, just as you accuse activisits of abusing the English language for thiers.
Second, the English language is not mathematical: sticking a predominately 'negative' prefix to a word does not invert it. That may be the etymological root of the two words (one being the inversion of the other), but linguistic evolution can seperate the two words until one isn't the inversion of the other.

However when we look in the dictionary we see that is not the case. The use of "discriminate" in the manner you describe, linguistically, is an huge failure to think clearly. It is a foolish inconsistency to say the opposite of "discriminate" is "equality" when in fact the opposite of "equality" is "inequality". It just makes no sense. All I want is clarity here, you know. Corrupting the meaning of words by blindly repeating a false use of a word until it becomes accepted not only obfuscates the language, but is implicitly anti-intellectual.

Save your specious logic for the uneducated.

So what is a good solution? I should offer one, as it would be unfair for me to criticize without offering a way to fix things. Well, the English language does not really need any new words. It is one of the richest languages in the world, and that is why it is called the language of poets.

Yes: because it is idiomatic and has borrowed (read: thieved) from other languages since before it was a coherant language. It is rich, but hardly as catagorical or preecise as you make out. Russian is so much more flexable .

I recommend the word "inequity"

Inequity implies wrongdoing, which is not the definition used in my OP. The whole point is to make a distinction between when to discriminate on the grounds of what are normally taboo properties: sex, age, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I guess I probably do support anti-discrimination laws (excluding affirmative action and "hate crimes" laws), but I just think we need to be careful about how much we let governments tell us what we can and can't do.

Welcome to Liberalism. But while I too don't support affirmative action, I do support hate crime laws.

 

[katholikos]

Discrimination is prejudice based on some trait, be it sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, age, etc (e.g., not giving someone a job as a cashier because they're of African descent is discrimination). By and large, people are opposed to it.

But I think it should be tolerated, in certain circumstances.

Casting directors frequently discriminate when they cast actors of a particular sex or race (Grey's Anatomy is a pleasant exception to this), yet no one bats an eyelid.

In general, I think that discriminating against someone because of an irrelevant trait is always wrong. But if, say, a potential employee's sexual orientation would be detrimental to their performance at work, then not giving them the job is, in my eyes, fair. And no, I don't know of any job where one's sexual orientation would interfere with one's performance .

Oh, and I am also against the idea of "Affirmative Action", to the extent that I support an employer's right to not employ someone for whatever reason.

How can we claim to be 'tolerant' if we won't even tolerate ideas of the intolerant?

[/ramble]

I actually agree with everything you just said. I hope that doesn't get you in trouble with your friends.


I'll just tag on one thing, about rights. There is a difference between denying someone their rights, and saying that someone should have rights that do not exist and then calling THAT the denial of rights. I have a feeling you know what I mean.

 

[cantata]

p.s. If adding the prefix "in" to a word makes it negative, KarateCowboy, how do you explain "inflammable" and "invaluable"?

English ≠ maths. Lulz.

 

[Chesterton]

...I do support hate crime laws.

Are we talking about the same thing? Does England have laws such that, if a thug beats me up because he wants to, and 5 minutes later the same thug beats you up because you’re homosexual and he wants to, the thug is worthy of greater punishment for beating you than me? These laws which ridiculously try to outlaw human emotions and criminalize thought itself? And you’re opposed to preferential treatment?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are we talking about the same thing? Does England have laws such that, if a thug beats me up because he wants to, and 5 minutes later the same thug beats you up because you’re homosexual and he wants to, the thug is worthy of greater punishment for beating you than me?

No: both are unfortunately common hate crimes. And yes, England has such laws.
However, if the thug beats you up for your wallet and phone (as happened to me just two weeks ago; talk about timing ), then that is less immoral than if he beat you up merely because of your sexual orientation.

It is related to the difference between opportunistic criminals and those with a particular victims in mind.

These laws which ridiculously try to outlaw human emotions and criminalize thought itself?

They do no such thing: they criminalise actions. Show me one hate crime law in the UK or US that makes it illegal to think about gay bashing.

 

[Beanieboy]

But if, say, a potential employee's sexual orientation would be detrimental to their performance at work, then not giving them the job is, in my eyes, fair.

[/ramble]

In the 70s, Harvey Milk, Mayor of SanFrancisco, needed to have press conferences, televised discussions, etc., because "Teacher" was one of the jobs listed as being detrimental (influence on children.)

It's pretty absurd, but that made perfect sense to them.

Prior to that, people thought including gay people in discrimination clauses was the same as condoning it, so it didn't matter whether you worked for a bank or a factory, they wanted to keep it legal for unlawful firing, or discriminatation in hiring.

 

[Beanieboy]

Are we talking about the same thing? Does England have laws such that, if a thug beats me up because he wants to, and 5 minutes later the same thug beats you up because you’re homosexual and he wants to, the thug is worthy of greater punishment for beating you than me? These laws which ridiculously try to outlaw human emotions and criminalize thought itself? And you’re opposed to preferential treatment?

I am convinced that people simply don't want to understand this.

2 planes fly into the WTC. It is an act of murder. It is a act of destruction.
However, it didn't just terrify those on the plane, and those in the building.

It terrified me in Minneapolis. Thus, rather than it being a simple murder, it is called "Terrorism", because it is meant cause terror in the entire nation by inflicting it upon a few. You will also note that what was done was very viscious, sudden, and pretty insane.

Now, compare this to a hate crime.

On June 7, 1998, Byrd, 49, accepted a ride from three drunk men named Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russell Brewer, and John William King. He had already known one of them. Instead of taking him home, the three men beat Byrd behind a convenience store, chained him by the ankles to their pickup truck, stripped the man naked, and dragged him for three miles. Although Lawrence Russell Brewer claimed that Byrd's throat had been slashed before he was dragged, forensic evidence suggests that Byrd had been attempting to keep his head up, and an autopsy suggested that Byrd was alive for much of the dragging and died after his right arm and head were severed when his body hit a culvert. His body had caught a sewage drain on the side of the road resulting in Byrd's decapitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Byrd_Jr.

This wasn't a simple killing. Obviously, Hate Crimes are far more viscious. The men who killed him were white supremists, and were trying to make a name for themselves.

However, were you in Detroit, and black, and realized that you could have easily been Byrd, this is going to upset you a lot. It's going to cause terror in you, so maybe instead of Hate Crime, it should simply be called Terrorism, because it is meant to scare people by sending a message of threat to a group of people.

People will also claim that Hate Crime is Thought Crime, but oddly, have no problem with 1st degree murder (premeditated), 2nd degree (murder in the heat of an argument) 3rd Degree (negligence) Manslaughter (irresponsibility) etc.

No one argues those.

So, I can only conclude that they think that those who get beaten to death violently (Shepard, for example, was beaten, pistol whipped, robbed, had cigarettes put out on him, and then tied to a fence to die alone) is asking for it, and deserves it, and doesn't really care about domestic terrorism if he/she is not in the targetted group.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Discrimination is prejudice based on some trait, be it sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, age, etc (e.g., not giving someone a job as a cashier because they're of African descent is discrimination). By and large, people are opposed to it.

But I think it should be tolerated, in certain circumstances.

Casting directors frequently discriminate when they cast actors of a particular sex or race (Grey's Anatomy is a pleasant exception to this), yet no one bats an eyelid.

In general, I think that discriminating against someone because of an irrelevant trait is always wrong. But if, say, a potential employee's sexual orientation would be detrimental to their performance at work, then not giving them the job is, in my eyes, fair. And no, I don't know of any job where one's sexual orientation would interfere with one's performance .

Oh, and I am also against the idea of "Affirmative Action", to the extent that I support an employer's right to not employ someone for whatever reason.

How can we claim to be 'tolerant' if we won't even tolerate ideas of the intolerant?

[/ramble]

I believe that a blind person cannot be hired as a school bus driver.

 

[ReverendDG]

I believe that a blind person cannot be hired as a school bus driver.

well considering a blind person can't memorize where objects are while driving, i don't think a bus driver would be a good job for someone who can't see.

whats your point? its reasonable to not hire someone for a job that they couldn't possibly do.
now not hiring a blind person at say a flower shop, would be wrong, since they can use their other senses to compensate for being blind.

 

[Chesterton]

Sorry to hear about your incident.

However, if the thug beats you up for your wallet and phone (as happened to me just two weeks ago; talk about timing ), then that is less immoral than if he beat you up merely because of your sexual orientation.

Less immoral? A judgment call. Other people judge homosexuality itself immoral. In my state, sodomy was still illegal until about three years ago. That people judge things differently is why it’s better that the government not speak on these issues, and simply treat every one equal. It should be the same crime to assault another person for any reason.
Those Libertarian ideals of yours are a bit slippery. So preferential government treatment is okay when you benefit?

It is related to the difference between opportunistic criminals and those with a particular victims in mind.

Wouldn’t a fan of Aston Villa who attacks a fan of Queens Park Rangers have a particular victim in mind? There are 1,000 ways to hate - why are race and sexual orientation given preference? Saying that some hate is worse than others, is saying some hate is better than others. It’s immoral to assault anyone, for any reason, and the law should treat it that way.

They do no such thing: they criminalise actions. Show me one hate crime law in the UK or US that makes it illegal to think about gay bashing.

No, they criminalize thought. If I punch you while thinking you’re a jerk, I’ve committed one crime. If I punch you while thinking you’re a homosexual, I’ve committed a different, more serious crime. How do we know what I’m thinking? The way we always know what someone’s thinking, by their words.

From the link you gave – “Hate crime can take many forms including:… verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters…”

That’s frightening to me, more frightening than a street thug. And this in the land which gave us Orwell and “1984”.

 

[Chesterton]

I am convinced that people simply don't want to understand this.

September 11 and the killing of Byrd are ultimately the same thing. When I hear of someone killed and robbed for monetary purposes, it puts fear into me and others also.

Your examples of the various murder degrees as inclusion of thought as part of the crime, are different because they evaluate thought as part of the crime, and not as a distinct thought which can exist harmlessly apart from the crime.

 

[eMesreveR]

Racism is not a crime.

The reason hate crimes are worse than "regular" crimes is because what hate crimes do is indicate that one is now targeted. Basically, increased terrorism.

Do you think the 9/11 tragedy would be nearly as terrifying if they said "we hate the world, and we will destroy everyone and everything," as opposed to just America? I mean, yeah, it's still terrifying, but now we're with the global community. Now we have compatriots.

Similarly, a hate crime against blacks is worse because it indicates to every other black person that they are to be singled out and hurt because they are Black, just as the terrorists singled America and hurt America because it is America. Basically, it's scarier. It forces the target group into a "us vs. them" paranoia.

And so it is with all hate crimes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Less immoral? A judgment call.

Indeed. I'm simply espousing my beliefs, not dictating absolute morality.

Other people judge homosexuality itself immoral. In my state, sodomy was still illegal until about three years ago. That people judge things differently is why it’s better that the government not speak on these issues, and simply treat every one equal. It should be the same crime to assault another person for any reason.

I disagree. The law exists for a reason: to curb destructive and sociopathic behaviour. Some people who commit hate crimes truly believe that they are doing the right thing; should we let them off scot free?

Those Libertarian ideals of yours are a bit slippery. So preferential government treatment is okay when you benefit?

No: I am a libertarian at heart. My attack was not homophobic, so when asked by the police if it was a "hate crime", I said it wasn't (I was walking home with my boyfriend at the time).

Wouldn’t a fan of Aston Villa who attacks a fan of Queens Park Rangers have a particular victim in mind?

Yup.

There are 1,000 ways to hate - why are race and sexual orientation given preference? Saying that some hate is worse than others, is saying some hate is better than others. It’s immoral to assault anyone, for any reason, and the law should treat it that way.

Whoever said that some hate is worse than others? The hate laws in effect target the biggest and most common forms of hate crimes: racism, homophobia, and the like. There is no distinction between different forms of hate, it's just a matter of logistics and practicality.

No, they criminalize thought. If I punch you while thinking you’re a jerk, I’ve committed one crime. If I punch you while thinking you’re a homosexual, I’ve committed a different, more serious crime. How do we know what I’m thinking? The way we always know what someone’s thinking, by their words.

Again, it is not their thoughts that matter: someone can think about punching someone else till their blue in the face. But doing it is what makes it a crime. Why you do it is what can turn it into a hate crime. What's going on in your mind is irrelevant; only your actions and motivations count.

From the link you gave – “Hate crime can take many forms including:… verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters…”

That’s frightening to me, more frightening than a street thug. And this in the land which gave us Orwell and “1984”.

Indeed, and I do not agree that such expressions of hate should be criminalised. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?