3 ms·
> Do you have no understanding of what discrimination is? Discrimination is perpetuated by those who hold power - it is completely and directly proportional to
by justinjlynn 9y ago
> Do you have no understanding of what discrimination is? Discrimination is perpetuated by those who hold power - it is completely and directly proportional to dominance - those who do not hold power cannot discriminate.
If you take that as axiomatic then there is no debate here if we insist on using the term discrimination to discuss this problem. However, if one can arbitrarily redefine words to mean whatever one so chooses them to mean and, in so doing, believe they're redefining what their interlocutor is espousing, then that individual is being truly intellectually dishonest.
Academically, of what discrimination consists and how discrimination is defined, as a word and concept, is still of great debate. Google around for morally relevant differences and discrimination for some sources and further reading. The Stanford Encyclopedia entry on discrimination is a good starting place.
However, in general common usage, the word discrimination is defined as:
> treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimination http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimin...
> a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination
>The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination
Note that in common usage the word is not qualified on the power or status of the agent of discrimination.
Unless both one and one's interlocutor have agreed on another definition it is vital to assume good faith and and stick to commonly accepted words and their meanings. If one does not one is at the risk of violating Grice's maxims and, in so doing, losing one's privilege of having others take one's words seriously. Put simply, if it's a new concept, use a new (or qualified) word. A seat at the table is predicated on clear, honest, equivocation-free communication.
I'm sure you're not doing these things purposefully. After all what is the point of advancing a cause if one, through one's actions, prejudices the very people one is trying persuade? It's rather self-defeating.
- nirvanatikku 9y agoIt's bizarre that from my response you had to get into semantics, which completely misses the point. It's not about dictionary definitions of words, it's about how discrimination manifests (or how it cannot in the hands of those who don't hold power). Surely we can debate what discrimination means, but there's a plethora of sociological literature on the intersection of that dictionary definition (that you referenced) and how it comes to fruition in the hands of dominant groups. This is obviously central to this discussion as it was implied that there was somehow reverse discrimination against men. Please share what you think about that, genuinely curious.
- justinjlynn 9y agoI don't agree with your implication that semantics aren't important in this argument. What you refer to simply as discrimination is probably better characterised as discrimination by "morally acceptable" traits while your interlocutor would characterise it as discrimination by "morally irrelevant" traits. This, I think, is the heart of the debate. It's clear that discrimination is occurring. The real question of debate is whether or not it's acceptable. It's politically untenable to admit that and so we do actually have to discuss semantics. After all, can you imagine having to say "I'm being sexist but it's okay, he's male." or being called a misogynist and saying one is proud of that fact?
- nirvanatikku 9y agoI didn't say that semantics were unimportant overall, I'm implying that its erroneous to assert that there's discrimination at play against men in this context because to imply so, supports the stale argument that policies favoring equal gender representation discriminate against men.
- justinjlynn 9y agoA fair statement. However, can we make a blanket statement about all policies or all possible such policies? Some of them are quite blunt (i.e. direct quota specification) and others attempt to address conditions that contribute to unequal outcomes and/or opportunities (i.e. hostile working environments). Each policy attempts to address the problem differently with different effects on those seeking to enter, work in, or leave the field. Could some clumsily implemented policy somewhere unjustifiably exclude someone or make conditions worse for them because of something they can't control? I think the answer to that question is certainly a yes. Is it possible that some of those discriminated against identify as male? Again, yes. We shouldn't make blanket statements or dismiss complaints about specific possible injustices. To do so is to forget how we got to the worse place we were at decades ago and risk going back there (in any direction). I can't imagine any of us want that.