Discrimination

[natty dread]

Aw come on admit it.

[Phatscotty]

You can't just ask some vague question and use it as a "gotcha" later on to imply that we agree with some dumb policy. Don't pull a Phatscotty on us lol. jk we're still cool right scotty? ...scotty?

vague? you sure?

we ain't cool if you are trying to minimize my point, and further debase it in a different thread. Call it out when you see it, I will admit when I was wrong, and will rephrase when warranted.

However, what is the difference between discrimination and an educated guess?

[john9blue]

That was kind of my point, and I think you'll agree. Where is the line between noticing trends and making future judgments or people based on those patterns, and noticing trends and using them to discriminate against others? One could argue that they are the same thing, yet the first one sounds reasonable and the second one does not. What's the difference, and what is wrong and right? Those questions are open to anyone btw.

[Phatscotty]

That was kind of my point, and I think you'll agree. Where is the line between noticing trends and making future judgments or people based on those patterns, and noticing trends and using them to discriminate against others? One could argue that they are the same thing, yet the first one sounds reasonable and the second one does not. What's the difference, and what is wrong and right? Those questions are open to anyone btw.

I think I can "draw a line" for ya. I will even allow you, the crafter of the magic, to pick your own examples.

Show me one example of

noticing trends and making future judgments or people based on those patterns

and one example of

noticing trends and using them to discriminate against others

and I will show you the line.

[john9blue]

noticing trends and making future judgments or people based on those patterns

i notice that people with long hair/facial hair tending to be liberal or atheist/agnostic. so next time i talk to one i avoid politics and religion because i probably disagree with their views at least somewhat.

noticing trends and using them to discriminate against others

i notice that i've been mugged twice in the city, both times by black people. so if i see a shady looking black person on the street (this example is fictional btw) i try to avoid them.

[Phatscotty]

noticing trends and making future judgments or people based on those patterns

i notice that people with long hair/facial hair tending to be liberal or atheist/agnostic. so next time i talk to one i avoid politics and religion because i probably disagree with their views at least somewhat.

noticing trends and using them to discriminate against others

i notice that i've been mugged twice in the city, both times by black people. so if i see a shady looking black person on the street (this example is fictional btw) i try to avoid them.

Okay, very decent. I admit I expected you to cherry pick the shit out of examples, but those are honest. I would only add one thing to your second example. It ONLY focuses on race. for example, did someone come to you and ask you for a dollar, and as soon as your reached into your wallet they took your wallet? Maybe you should "discriminate" against taking your wallet out in the city? or, maybe, I would make an "educated guess" these theoretical muggings did not take place in broad day light, so perhaps you should "discriminate??" against going to the city during the night? (oh no thats black too cant do that j/k) There are a lot of factors. Shit, maybe you should stop discriminating against guns and get one and not have to worry about getting murdered for 7 dollars and an old rubber and not letting criminals dictate where you go or when?(I keep a naked picture of my hot ex-GF in my wallet with her address on the back of it just in case I get mugged, I can get her back at least)

See, that example, the theoretical case that both times the mugger was black, just is not enough, since I make an educated guess you passed by 200 other black people who did not mug you. In that case of discrimination, the discriminator is just an idiot maybe? Usually the case

[john9blue]

Well I mean, it could be 5 times, 10 times, etc. Maybe I'm a veteran gas station attendant who's been robbed 10 times, all by black people, and now I'm wary whenever I have to serve a shady black person? That's discrimination, but surely you wouldn't hold that against me?

[john9blue]

I guess I should start making a point here, so I will. There is no real difference between "discrimination" in the negative sense and "judgment calls from experience" in the positive sense. The only difference is in the effect of the discrimination, i.e. whether you hurt someone by doing it (e.g. denying a qualified black applicant a job) or help someone by doing it (e.g. prevent yourself from getting robbed). This isn't really a problem for me because I'm a consequentialist, but for a deontologist (who thinks certain actions are always right or wrong) it might pose a few problems.

[jimboston]

I guess I should start making a point here, so I will. There is no real difference between "discrimination" in the negative sense and "judgment calls from experience" in the positive sense. The only difference is in the effect of the discrimination, i.e. whether you hurt someone by doing it (e.g. denying a qualified black applicant a job) or help someone by doing it (e.g. prevent yourself from getting robbed). This isn't really a problem for me because I'm a consequentialist, but for a deontologist (who thinks certain actions are always right or wrong) it might pose a few problems.

So if, in "discriminating" or "making a judgement call" the effect has a negative consequence for someone else. Then it is a bad thing?

What if your act of discriminating / judgement call-making is something you do for your own benefit? Like if you choose not to go to McDonalds to eat, because their fast-food doesn't agree with you... this choice is (by definition of the word) a discrimination against McDonalds.. and by doing so your act is harming the people who work there.

So this is bad?

[DirtyDishSoap]

All forms of discrimination are obviously OK, regardless of the context or grounds.

The type that I especially like, more than all the rest, is when somebody comes for a job interview and you are all like "no way is this job for you dude, you don't look like me and my buddy Jim and I find your funny hair kind of weird looking, you would probably have more fun in a job where you clean out the insides of bins forever and stuff" that type is the best.

Sometimes its best to just admit you cannot do something and move on. For example, I cannot tell a decent joke. (except once in a very rare while, by accidence )

#1 - Player here is a another example of how your comment doesn't apply in any way to the quote you are including. Please explain what your comment has to do with anything the Good Doctor said.

#2 - If you "tell" a joke by accident it's called a mistake, not a joke. I am guessing most people laughing at your "joke" are laughing at you... not with you.

Do what I did. Block it. So far it's working out lovely.

As for the topic. It depends to me...If you're black you're black. If you're a (insert your racist comment here.) then you're a (insert your racist comment here.)
That's also working out quite nicely for me.

[Phatscotty]

I guess I should start making a point here, so I will. There is no real difference between "discrimination" in the negative sense and "judgment calls from experience" in the positive sense. The only difference is in the effect of the discrimination, i.e. whether you hurt someone by doing it (e.g. denying a qualified black applicant a job) or help someone by doing it (e.g. prevent yourself from getting robbed). This isn't really a problem for me because I'm a consequentialist, but for a deontologist (who thinks certain actions are always right or wrong) it might pose a few problems.

if I were the attendant, I would "blame" the police, the economy, the bad neighborhood/location, among many other things, far before i would blame it on a persons color. However, most people believe what they see, and this is hard to overcome perceptions, true or false.

However, that also brings me to some cracker ass suburb ass emo (disc?) who does not see many black people at all who is a gas station attendant. If that person were robbed 10 times in a row by a black person, then I could easily see how he might be "discriminating" against blacks in the future, and in that extreme circumstance, I would not be surprised if that guy feared blacks for the rest of his life or just joined some neo-nazi white supremacy group and having the gang leader hold up this example of robberies as gospel.

In closing, there are just so many things to factor into every situation besides race. There are just some people who are going to hate/dislike other people who are different. As my occuring theme has been, racism and discrimination is a human condition and knows no boundaries of race or color or creed, nationality, climate, and probably every planet that bears life. Heck, Racism and Discrimination is about the least racist/discriminatory thing in the world! Every group has racists. The republicans have racists, the democrats have racists, the black panthers and naacp have racists, the Tea Party even has 1 or 2...

[gatoraubrey2]

The point I think phatscotty was trying to make earlier is that the specificity and complexity of a person's discrimination are really what determines whether it is justified. In his example, it's not necessarily black people who are muggers, but black people in a certain place, at a certain time, with a certain appearance. In fact, taking those criteria into account, it could be possible to eliminate black altogether, and focus only on location, time of day, and appearance. White people mug, too. So, it's not wrong to discriminate against muggers, but it is wrong to discriminate against a group larger than specifically necessary (i.e., all black people), which happens when your definition of said group is not complex enough (only taking into account the race, not the other factors).

If we look at a real-world example, the screening of passengers boarding an airplane works well. Discrimination in this case is a good thing, since we don't have the time or resources to cavity-search every flier. Wasting time screening non-threats isn't smart, so we do want to focus our search on potential terrorists. However, we need a good (specific and complex) definition of who we're going to search. We can't search all Muslims, because we don't know who is Muslim. And anyway, the Muslim American who's more normal that most Americans isn't who we want. We don't want to search all people who speak a foreign language, because we don't have a problem with German or Japanese terrorists. That's a waste of time. And we shouldn't search all men, even though the hijackers were all men, because, well, there are a lot of men who don't fit the profile.

If we were going to effectively discriminate, we would want to search males who speak in a foreign dialect common to Muslim countries. In this manner, we would be more likely to search the right people, and we would avoid a blanket search of groups whose membership does not necessarily correlate to a high likelihood of terrorism (i.e., all men or all Muslims). If the US government would actually follow these criteria, the skies would be a safer place.

As far as the moral implications of discrimination itself: if it is morally right to preserve oneself, it is morally right to discriminate. We make choices every day about the food we eat, the water we drink, and the people we associate ourselves with. If we didn't discriminate, we would all quite likely be dead. And, although my boycott of Whataburger (their food is gross) does harm all of their employees, distributors, owners, their real estate agents, and so on through the butterfly effect, it is not a morally wrong act. It is morally right, in fact, for me to choose food that I prefer, that doesn't make me want to rip out my guts and burn them (if you can't tell, I really hate this restaurant). I would go as far as to argue that it is never a moral imperative to take an action detrimental to oneself. If that's the case, then discrimination in some form becomes necessary to determine what actions or interactions might be detrimental...

[Phatscotty]

where have you been all my life

[gatoraubrey2]

I was just wondering that about you while reading the "Great Recession" thread It's so sad listening to some of the absolute shite that spews from the mouths of some of these people.

[john9blue]

So if, in "discriminating" or "making a judgement call" the effect has a negative consequence for someone else. Then it is a bad thing?

What if your act of discriminating / judgement call-making is something you do for your own benefit? Like if you choose not to go to McDonalds to eat, because their fast-food doesn't agree with you... this choice is (by definition of the word) a discrimination against McDonalds.. and by doing so your act is harming the people who work there.

So this is bad?

well that's how the free market works...

you'd have to take into account all of the effects of your actions. sure the mcdonald's might make a few less dollars that month, but you won't be getting sick or have a bad day because of their food, which is probably more important

will respond to the walls when i read them

[john9blue]

if I were the attendant, I would "blame" the police, the economy, the bad neighborhood/location, among many other things, far before i would blame it on a persons color. However, most people believe what they see, and this is hard to overcome perceptions, true or false.

However, that also brings me to some cracker ass suburb ass emo (disc?) who does not see many black people at all who is a gas station attendant. If that person were robbed 10 times in a row by a black person, then I could easily see how he might be "discriminating" against blacks in the future, and in that extreme circumstance, I would not be surprised if that guy feared blacks for the rest of his life or just joined some neo-nazi white supremacy group and having the gang leader hold up this example of robberies as gospel.

In closing, there are just so many things to factor into every situation besides race. There are just some people who are going to hate/dislike other people who are different. As my occuring theme has been, racism and discrimination is a human condition and knows no boundaries of race or color or creed, nationality, climate, and probably every planet that bears life. Heck, Racism and Discrimination is about the least racist/discriminatory thing in the world! Every group has racists. The republicans have racists, the democrats have racists, the black panthers and naacp have racists, the Tea Party even has 1 or 2...

i agree that the scope of discrimination extends far beyond race. but even if there are many factors surrounding it (socioeconomic, etc.), it still would boil down to the fact that black people are, to this person, more likely to commit robberies, and his racism/discrimination would be good and rational. i was just making the point that racial discrimination is not AUTOMATICALLY bad by its very nature... although it can easily be taken out of hand, like the examples you gave.

The point I think phatscotty was trying to make earlier is that the specificity and complexity of a person's discrimination are really what determines whether it is justified. In his example, it's not necessarily black people who are muggers, but black people in a certain place, at a certain time, with a certain appearance. In fact, taking those criteria into account, it could be possible to eliminate black altogether, and focus only on location, time of day, and appearance. White people mug, too. So, it's not wrong to discriminate against muggers, but it is wrong to discriminate against a group larger than specifically necessary (i.e., all black people), which happens when your definition of said group is not complex enough (only taking into account the race, not the other factors).

If we look at a real-world example, the screening of passengers boarding an airplane works well. Discrimination in this case is a good thing, since we don't have the time or resources to cavity-search every flier. Wasting time screening non-threats isn't smart, so we do want to focus our search on potential terrorists. However, we need a good (specific and complex) definition of who we're going to search. We can't search all Muslims, because we don't know who is Muslim. And anyway, the Muslim American who's more normal that most Americans isn't who we want. We don't want to search all people who speak a foreign language, because we don't have a problem with German or Japanese terrorists. That's a waste of time. And we shouldn't search all men, even though the hijackers were all men, because, well, there are a lot of men who don't fit the profile.

If we were going to effectively discriminate, we would want to search males who speak in a foreign dialect common to Muslim countries. In this manner, we would be more likely to search the right people, and we would avoid a blanket search of groups whose membership does not necessarily correlate to a high likelihood of terrorism (i.e., all men or all Muslims). If the US government would actually follow these criteria, the skies would be a safer place.

As far as the moral implications of discrimination itself: if it is morally right to preserve oneself, it is morally right to discriminate. We make choices every day about the food we eat, the water we drink, and the people we associate ourselves with. If we didn't discriminate, we would all quite likely be dead. And, although my boycott of Whataburger (their food is gross) does harm all of their employees, distributors, owners, their real estate agents, and so on through the butterfly effect, it is not a morally wrong act. It is morally right, in fact, for me to choose food that I prefer, that doesn't make me want to rip out my guts and burn them (if you can't tell, I really hate this restaurant). I would go as far as to argue that it is never a moral imperative to take an action detrimental to oneself. If that's the case, then discrimination in some form becomes necessary to determine what actions or interactions might be detrimental...

i pretty much agree with all of this... it's hard not to! it's worth noting though that in your airline example, you were discriminating partially against large groups (males, arabs, etc.), and even the specific groups were "larger than necessary". so you can't ALWAYS blame people for taking shortcuts and using larger groups such as race, gender, etc. to make judgments. besides, people specify their discrimination subconsciously anyway. i doubt anybody would think they were getting robbed if a well groomed black man in a suit came in the store...

[gatoraubrey2]

i pretty much agree with all of this... it's hard not to! it's worth noting though that in your airline example, you were discriminating partially against large groups (males, arabs, etc.), and even the specific groups were "larger than necessary". so you can't ALWAYS blame people for taking shortcuts and using larger groups such as race, gender, etc. to make judgments. besides, people specify their discrimination subconsciously anyway. i doubt anybody would think they were getting robbed if a well groomed black man in a suit came in the store...

I certainly agree with you, John, that even my pared-down group was larger than necessary. Perhaps we could include foreign passports and many other criteria. I was simply shortening the argument for the sake of brevity, since I'm not writing the TSA manual, here

And no, I don't particularly blame individuals for taking shortcuts. My main point here is that discrimination in and of itself is not bad or evil; that, in fact, it is a necessary tool for human interaction and survival. It is improperly applied discrimination that leads to negative consequences for the wrong people.

i agree that the scope of discrimination extends far beyond race. but even if there are many factors surrounding it (socioeconomic, etc.)....

That is incredibly insightful. It's very interesting to note that in other countries, it is other races that are discriminated against by the dominant race. In France, for example, Muslims are regarded by whites in a very similar way to the way blacks are viewed here. It seems that worldwide, the races that are discriminated against tend to fall lower on the socioeconomic scale, which contributes in part to the higher crime rates and unrest within those minority groups. Also, it is interesting to note that many Americans who share your sentiments about blacks tend not to pass those judgments upon African or Caribbean blacks, but only African Americans. This suggests to me that "black" is nothing more than a cultural and socioeconomic indicator, rather than a state in and of itself.

[Woodruff]

I guess I should start making a point here, so I will. There is no real difference between "discrimination" in the negative sense and "judgment calls from experience" in the positive sense. The only difference is in the effect of the discrimination, i.e. whether you hurt someone by doing it (e.g. denying a qualified black applicant a job) or help someone by doing it (e.g. prevent yourself from getting robbed).

Incorrect. Discrimination in the positive sense has to do with using your experience, intelligence and judgement abilities to make a determination about an INDIVIDUAL. Discrimination in the negative sense has nothing at all to do with intelligence or judgement abilities and possibly only a little bit to do with experience. In that case, it's largely about position or power and the fear of losing it to a GROUP.

[john9blue]

What if there is a group that conducts bad activities? What if this group brings out the worst in people, and even makes them worse people overall? Would it be bad to discriminate against such a group?

[muy_thaiguy]

What if there is a group that conducts bad activities? What if this group brings out the worst in people, and even makes them worse people overall? Would it be bad to discriminate against such a group?

I know my 16 year old cousin is very annoying, obnoxious, smart-mouthed, and rude, but I'm not sure if all 16 year olds are that bad.

[King Doctor]

What if there is a group that conducts bad activities? What if this group brings out the worst in people, and even makes them worse people overall? Would it be bad to discriminate against such a group?

It would not be wrong to take measured, proportionate and evidence-led actions against such a group; it would however be wrong to take unconsidered action against an individual simply because they looked like they might be a member of that group

[Woodruff]

What if there is a group that conducts bad activities? What if this group brings out the worst in people, and even makes them worse people overall? Would it be bad to discriminate against such a group?

Any group consists of individuals. Deal with the individuals as individuals and you have dealt with the group.

[jimboston]

What if there is a group that conducts bad activities? What if this group brings out the worst in people, and even makes them worse people overall? Would it be bad to discriminate against such a group?

Any group consists of individuals. Deal with the individuals as individuals and you have dealt with the group.

It's fine to deal with groups as groups too. I mean, if the group specifically advertises itself as having a set of beliefs and or proponents of a certain actions. For example... if you see a bunch of skin-heads with swastika's hanging out, you know what they (as a group) believe and what actions they (as a group) propose. It's perfectly appropriate to take advance action with using your knowledge of the group to determine how you approach the in-duh-viduals.

[Woodruff]

What if there is a group that conducts bad activities? What if this group brings out the worst in people, and even makes them worse people overall? Would it be bad to discriminate against such a group?

Any group consists of individuals. Deal with the individuals as individuals and you have dealt with the group.

It's fine to deal with groups as groups too. I mean, if the group specifically advertises itself as having a set of beliefs and or proponents of a certain actions. For example... if you see a bunch of skin-heads with swastika's hanging out, you know what they (as a group) believe and what actions they (as a group) propose. It's perfectly appropriate to take advance action with using your knowledge of the group to determine how you approach the in-duh-viduals.

I'm not saying it's not fine in some circumstances. However, by and large it is to your disadvantage to do so. By dealing with the individuals, you have dealt with the group. Let's say, for instance, that a group has come to you for a job. It would make far more sense for you to hire/not hire them as individuals (since you have much more control over what you're getting), rather than the group as a whole. If the group as a whole refuses to be hired in such a manner, then that is their choice. Also, by doing so, you avoid all claims of illegal discrimination because you can show that you didn't react in a blanket manner.

[john9blue]

What if there is a group that conducts bad activities? What if this group brings out the worst in people, and even makes them worse people overall? Would it be bad to discriminate against such a group?

Any group consists of individuals. Deal with the individuals as individuals and you have dealt with the group.

It's fine to deal with groups as groups too. I mean, if the group specifically advertises itself as having a set of beliefs and or proponents of a certain actions. For example... if you see a bunch of skin-heads with swastika's hanging out, you know what they (as a group) believe and what actions they (as a group) propose. It's perfectly appropriate to take advance action with using your knowledge of the group to determine how you approach the in-duh-viduals.

I'm not saying it's not fine in some circumstances. However, by and large it is to your disadvantage to do so. By dealing with the individuals, you have dealt with the group. Let's say, for instance, that a group has come to you for a job. It would make far more sense for you to hire/not hire them as individuals (since you have much more control over what you're getting), rather than the group as a whole. If the group as a whole refuses to be hired in such a manner, then that is their choice. Also, by doing so, you avoid all claims of illegal discrimination because you can show that you didn't react in a blanket manner.

But my point is that you do discriminate against individuals if they are a part of a bad group...