What's discrimination?

[Voegelin]

Townhall
Walter Williams
Sept 6, 2006

. . .Imagine how silly, not to mention impossible, life would be if discrimination were outlawed. Imagine engaging in just about any activity where we couldn't discriminate by race, sex, height, weight, age, mannerisms, college selection, looks or ability; it would turn into a carnival.

. . . Common sense suggests that not all discrimination should be eliminated, so the question is, what kind of discrimination should be permitted? I'm guessing the answer depends on one's values for freedom of association, keeping in mind freedom of association implies freedom not to associate.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/06/whats_discrimination

 

[jesusmysaviour76]

Hmmm what an interesting question, I guess we all discriminate on some level.

Especially in choosing a mate, because we of course go first on physical attraction. If you aren't physically attracted to someone we tend not to talk to them as a potential mate, so in a sense that discrimination is ok, but I think we can take it too far. When we get to the point where we aren't talking to anyone because we don't find them physically appealing then we have a problem.

But it is certainly a fine line. And same with in the workplace, and employer might come up against someone who is arrogant rude, and nasty but they will pick them over someone who is loving, nice and kind because the rude person is better qualified for the job, so that discrimination needs to sometimes happen because we can't put a cleaner in a surgeon role it wouldn't work.

So in answer to your actual question, I believe that some discrimination happens and we don't even realise we are doing it, but I think that if you are discriminating to be purposely nasty or putting someone down, or it is hindering your walk with God then it is a problem and you need to seek God for help.

Ok was that long winded enough for ya

 

[Voegelin]

I think that if you are discriminating to be purposely nasty or putting someone down, or it is hindering your walk with God then it is a problem and you need to seek God for help.

Certainly agree with that. Another question is, when is the state justified in taking away our free will which allows us to make both moral and immoral decisions?

I would not phrase the question as Walter Williams does: what kind of discrimination should be permitted?

The default position should be liberty. The burden of proof for restricting freedom of association, freedom of contract and so on should be on those who wish to take it away.

 

[ElvisFan42]

The article is kind of a stretch

Discrimination is simply the act of choice. When we choose Bordeaux wine, we discriminate against Burgundy wine.

Not really, all wines had the same chance of being at your dinner table, your taste dictates which one shows up. Now if you tried all wines except Italian wines because you hate Italy, that would be discriminatory.

When I married Mrs. Williams, I discriminated against other women.

Again, all woman had a chance at being Mrs. Williams.

Choosing a 6'9" guy to play basketball on your team over a 5'4" guy isn't discriminatory, that's just logical. Choosing a black guy over a white guy because you don't like white people is.

The technical definition fits many of the articles examples, but in legal terms, it doesn't.

On the other hand, I may have been distracted by that undocumented border patrol agent!

 

[quatona]

"Discrimination" is used to signify various concepts.
One has a neutral connotation - it´s simply making distinctions and often picking something over something else.
The other has a negative connotation (discrimation against): Treating someone worse than someone else for supposedly unjust reasons.
If you have a rough idea what "equal rights" mean, you also know what "discrimation" (in its negative meaning) is supposed to signify: A violation of these equal rights.

 

[Robinsegg]

What's the difference between "discrimination" and "discernment"?
Rachel

 

[KarateCowboy]

Townhall
Walter Williams
Sept 6, 2006

. . .Imagine how silly, not to mention impossible, life would be if discrimination were outlawed. Imagine engaging in just about any activity where we couldn't discriminate by race, sex, height, weight, age, mannerisms, college selection, looks or ability; it would turn into a carnival.

. . . Common sense suggests that not all discrimination should be eliminated, so the question is, what kind of discrimination should be permitted? I'm guessing the answer depends on one's values for freedom of association, keeping in mind freedom of association implies freedom not to associate.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/06/whats_discrimination

In that recent terrorist attempt in England with the liquid explosives one of the airport employees heard that a passenger had an Arabic name, and decided to search his luggage because of that. If it weren't for that, hundreds might be dead now.

Racial profiling saved the day

In light of that, I am certain we can all agree that discrimination is not an inherently bad thing. Am i rite guyz?

 

[KarateCowboy]

What's the difference between "discrimination" and "discernment"?
Rachel

It appears there is no differencefrom etymonline.com)

discriminate 1628, from L. discriminare "to divide," from discrimen, derived n. from discernere (see discern). The adverse (usually racial) sense is first recorded 1866, Amer.Eng. Positive sense remains in discriminating (adj.) "possessing discernment" (1792).

"It especially annoys me when racists are accused of 'discrimination.' The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one 'race' to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination." [Christopher Hitchens]



So it appears that to be very discriminate means to possess discernment.
​

 

[Watergirl]

Thanks for the article, Voegelin. Walter Williams and John Stossel are two of my favorite people.

 

[Watergirl]

It appears there is no differencefrom etymonline.com)


discriminate 1628, from L. discriminare "to divide," from discrimen, derived n. from discernere (see discern). The adverse (usually racial) sense is first recorded 1866, Amer.Eng. Positive sense remains in discriminating (adj.) "possessing discernment" (1792).

"It especially annoys me when racists are accused of 'discrimination.' The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one 'race' to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination." [Christopher Hitchens]​

So it appears that to be very discriminate means to possess discernment.​

That's a great post. Especially the Christopher Hitchens quote.

 

[Watergirl]

In that recent terrorist attempt in England with the liquid explosives one of the airport employees heard that a passenger had an Arabic name, and decided to search his luggage because of that. If it weren't for that, hundreds might be dead now.

Racial profiling saved the day

In light of that, I am certain we can all agree that discrimination is not an inherently bad thing. Am i rite guyz?

Discrimination is good and is necessary.

Your post reminds me of something Glenn Beck said:

"Do we profile young Arab and Muslim men? Of course we do. They're the ones blowing up the airplanes. When seventy year old Swedish ladies start blowing up airplanes, then let's start profiling them, too".

 

[MoonlessNight]

Not really, all wines had the same chance of being at your dinner table, your taste dictates which one shows up. Now if you tried all wines except Italian wines because you hate Italy, that would be discriminatory.

No, not all wines had the same chance of showing up at your dinner table. Your taste leads you to prefer some over others, so those are more likely to show up.

If I took 1,000 applications but didn't dwell on the applications from women because I didn't like the thought of female workers, we would call that discrimination.

I suppose you could say it is discrimination when you use criteria not relevent to the issue. Well, even that's pretty much impossible to avoid; how many job positions are ultimately decided by a nebulous "like" among finalists who are pretty much equally qualified?

But even ignoring that, it might be better to include things that are relevent to the issue as discrimination. For example, suppose I am trying to decide between two applicants. One has a heart condition such that I know that he will almost certainly die in ten years. That has an effect on his ability to work for over ten years. But you might call it discrimination if I don't hire him based on that. Or suppose I am trying to find a sales representative and I use the attractiveness of the applicants as a consideration, because people like buying things from pretty people. That too could be considered discrimination.

In fact legally much of this stuff is considered discrimination even when it is completely relevent. You can't decide not to hire a woman because she's pregnant and you don't want to give out maternity leave, for example (at least in this state.) But that does have an effect on her ability to work.

Choosing a 6'9" guy to play basketball on your team over a 5'4" guy isn't discriminatory, that's just logical. Choosing a black guy over a white guy because you don't like white people is.

Careful with statements like that. If we did find real differences between the races; either physical, social or whatever; I think that attitude justifies considering race in hiring decisions.

 

[trunks2k]

This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen. Words have different meanings depending on their context.

It's so silly to take the word in one context and try to apply it to an entirely different context.

 

[ElvisFan42]

No, not all wines had the same chance of showing up at your dinner table. Your taste leads you to prefer some over others, so those are more likely to show up.

How would that happen before you ever tasted wine? Your taste would only lead to prefer some after you tried some.

Or suppose I am trying to find a sales representative and I use the attractiveness of the applicants as a consideration, because people like buying things from pretty people. That too could be considered discrimination.

That's accurate. If you had worked with pretty people and ugly people, and found pretty people to be better for you, that would be experience, not discrimination, if you never tried the ugly salespeople, it would be.

Careful with statements like that. If we did find real differences between the races; either physical, social or whatever; I think that attitude justifies considering race in hiring decisions.

My example was based on prejiduces not having to do with the task at hand.

 

[wanderingone]

Discrimination is generally unfair or unequal treatment of someone because of (depending on location) "race", gender, ethnicity, country of origin, orientation, age, and/or disability. (not sure if I missed any there)

It is not allowing opportunity or access because of one or more of the above issues, and generally it doesn't apply to your personal prejudices unless you use your personal prejudices to deny access.

So if you refuse to date people of a specific complexion nobody really cares because you're just not that important. But if you work as a clerk at the marriage bureau and refuse to provide a marriage license to a couple who is that complexion or who are of different complexions you have discriminated against them.

If you don't care to make your home accessible to people who must use a wheelchair thats okay, you're just not that important. If you are a contractor building a new public library and refuse to install a ramp because you think people in wheelchairs shouldn't have "special" rights you are discriminating.

It's just not that hard to understand.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Discrimination is generally unfair or unequal treatment of someone because of (depending on location) "race", gender, ethnicity, country of origin, orientation, age, and/or disability. (not sure if I missed any there)

Only in Newspeak, my friend.

 

[MoonlessNight]

My example was based on prejiduces not having to do with the task at hand.

Exactly. So if we could say that race or sex or sexual orientation or religion or whatever did have something to do with the task at hand, it would be justified to discriminate based on it, would it not?

That gets pretty close to a justification of racial profiling.

 

[wanderingone]

Only in Newspeak, my friend.

No - that's what discrimination is when we're referring to discriminating against someone. Obviously terminology used for legislation and terminology to discuss your tastes in music, food or clothing are entirely different things.

 

[Spherical Time]

I think the premise of this article is something that Bill Maher has been saying for years, and it's something that I agree with him on.

Of course, the author of this article is equivocating between the private and the public, and also discrimination and choice.

So, I agree with the setiment, and disagree with some of the specifics of this article.

 

[SallyNow]

The article in the OP seems more like an opinion page than a well-researched article. There's nothing wrong with the opinion page, but it does mean that we can't take what it says as fact.

If I pick a red wine over a white wine, I am not "discriminating" against the white wine, as both have dissimiliar qualities. They are different products. The only factor in the choice is, "is this wine something I like?"

And that is why the very article smells of the opinion page... it doesn't make a valid comparision. It's fun word play, yes, but not really reality. Wine bottles are not people. When one is hiring someone, age, gender, race, income level, and place of birth are not relevant; training, ability, education, past experience, knowledge of the subject at hand are.

Discrimination is generally unfair or unequal treatment of someone because of (depending on location) "race", gender, ethnicity, country of origin, orientation, age, and/or disability. (not sure if I missed any there)

It is not allowing opportunity or access because of one or more of the above issues, and generally it doesn't apply to your personal prejudices unless you use your personal prejudices to deny access.

So if you refuse to date people of a specific complexion nobody really cares because you're just not that important. But if you work as a clerk at the marriage bureau and refuse to provide a marriage license to a couple who is that complexion or who are of different complexions you have discriminated against them.

If you don't care to make your home accessible to people who must use a wheelchair thats okay, you're just not that important. If you are a contractor building a new public library and refuse to install a ramp because you think people in wheelchairs shouldn't have "special" rights you are discriminating.

It's just not that hard to understand.

Exactly!