Tuesday, November 20th, 2007

When is discrimination OK?

My very, very long response to a comment over at Sadly, No!:

the appalling thing about what I wrote

Your discrimination and/or fear is based on the person’s behavior. I think this is the logical and acceptable basis for reacting to other people.

If someone goes around bragging about shooting stray cats or dogs, being afraid of that person is the “correct” response: when you consider it’s not that far a jump to shooting people or wonder what happens to any stray bullets, it’s pretty clear that this person represents a real, physical danger to the people around him. (If your belief system condemns cruelty to animals as wrong, then loathing him is also appropriate.)

If someone constantly talks about beating up, incarcerating, or even killing people who share your beliefs, then you are right to fear them and avoid them–it’s just self preservation. If you know for a fact that they are just “kidding” or full of bullshit, then you might not fear them, but despising them is still a perfectly valid response. (”Dude, you just told me I should die–why would I want to go have a beer with you?”)

This is completely different from hating or discriminating against someone based on appearance, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.: those things don’t have a direct effect on you, so there’s no logical reason to discriminate based on them.

On the flip, if someone’s behavior has a tangible, negative effect on you, you have a right to react. This particular group of people (the “yokels”, not Christians in general) are grouped together by the way they act, and the way they act happens to affect you negatively.

What’s the quote? “Extremism in the defense against assholes in no vice” or something?

3 Responses to “When is discrimination OK?”

1. Monkay Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am

   Thanks for addressing this difficult problem. This is something that I have noticed, that RW Columnist writes “Left-wingers are big dumb bazootyheads” and then I think, “that RW columnist is a big dumb bazootyhead” and then I feel that there must be more to it than mutual loathing like unhappy children at recess; how can I prove that I am right and they are wrong? And then that isn’t really it either, it is that I feel that they are not ‘arguing in good faith’. I am quite happy to be wrong sometimes, if I were right about everything all the time that would be too strange. okay I am rambling a bit, point is that ‘behavior’ is a discernable objective difference, I can tell which side I want to be on without looking at the uniform (so to speak).

2. jim Says:
   April 21st, 2008 at 9:38 pm

   Yep, discrimination CAN be a virtue.

   If an interviewer hires the best candidate, that too is overt discrimination. As is arresting & locking up violent goons. The Dipshit & Visigoth Lobbies refuse to comment.

   “Discriminating” can also mean you’re perceptive & not afraid to have both common sense & actual standards - don’t let sexists, racists & religious bigots ruin a perfectly good concept. Bad enough they’ve royally buggered up decency as it is.

   I am an unrepentant moronophobe.
   If that hurts morons’ feelings, I can live with that.
   They’re getting too powerful for me to play nice.
   If we don’t stop them, they’ll kill us all.

3. Suricou Raven Says:
   June 19th, 2008 at 11:43 am

   When I was in university, they had a sign that really annoyed me - prominantly displayed next to the student affairs office, a proud boast that the university would not discriminate against people because of their age, gender, sexual orientation, background, nationality, religion or academic ability.

   Some of that I can agree with. But doesn’t a university refusing to discriminate on grounds of academic ability sort of defeat the whole purpose of a qualification? They are supposed to test people, and discriminate against those who fail the tests by refusing to give them the certificate.

   I also think it dangerous for any academic organisation to be too dedicated to not discriminating on grounds of religion, because it also means they lose the ability to ridicule and dismiss people with obviously nonsense theories that have religious origins. Creationism comes immediatly to mind, but I really wouldn’t be surprised if I were to read about a doctor suing a med-school for religious discrimination because they wouldn’t tolerate his religious view that all disease is caused by demonic posession and can be cured only by exorcism :> I note that one American fundamentalist school is already suing a university that refuses to accept it’s young-earth creationist course as a valid scientific qualification, saying it is discriminating against the course for it’s religious content. There are also a lot of very dubious historical claims made by some religions - events central to the faith which either have no real evidence, or actually contradict the historical record. Academia should be about seeking the *facts*, no about being ‘respectful’ or ‘tolerant’ of falsehoods hiding under the cloak of religion.

   My last act before dropping out was to pull that poster down and tear it up. Hated that place :>

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.