5 ms·
Nope, you're confusing the syntactic definition of discrimination with the semantic definition of discrimination.
by jeromebaek 7y ago
Nope, you're confusing the syntactic definition of discrimination with the semantic definition of discrimination.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- maxander 7y agoI get what you’re trying to say, but I’m not sure there’s such a thing as the “syntactic definition” of a word.
- colejohnson66 7y agoNo. Reverse discrimination is just that: discrimination
- dragonwriter 7y agoAll law is discrimination. Some is impermissible discrimination, but the test for that isn't “would it be impermissible if reversed”, and not only because that would produce infinite regress with no answer, but because mirroring policy without mirroring social context does not result in mirror policies necessarily falling on the same side of the legal tests of impermissible discrimination.
- torstenvl 7y agoBut see Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/515/200 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/515/200
- dragonwriter 7y agoSure, the standard is the same in either direction.