3 ms·

> a law that requires discrimination based on race/gender/etc This is a semantic matter that largely depends on context, but more typically, it is not consider

by epgui 4y ago

> a law that requires discrimination based on race/gender/etc This is a semantic matter that largely depends on context, but more typically, it is not considered "discrimination" in the legal or usual common sense when it's in reality a form of "affirmative action". I'm just pointing this out to distinguish the case where "discrimination" can have positive meaning with that where it has pejorative meaning. When making value judgments either way, overloaded word choices can cause more harm than good. Edit: for those who are taking issue with my comment, please see #7 before you downvote: https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-myths-about-affirmative-action.aspx https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-...

sharikous 4y ago
It's not a matter of "typically". A certain political side is pushing to define "discrimination" to apply only against certain groups. That use is not typical especially when you consider history and the fact that it still differs from the view of the constitution. Moreover it strikes me as disingenuous (like the Soviets calling Western news disinformatzya). Where does discrimination have a positive meaning? I am pretty sure that the folks who are against this law will also be against it if you call it "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" once you explain the meaning to them. From a meritocratic, humanistic, democratic perspective it is just morally wrong however you spin it.
- epgui 4y ago
  This idea of a meritocratic system you have is very incomplete. I'd really recommend listening to what Michael Sandel has to say about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewckuxa9hw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewckuxa9hw
  - sharikous 4y ago
    Even if you accept his caution about merit it is still morally wrong to make sweeping decisions on basis of sex if you hold to democracy, humanism, individualism... Actually an honest take of taking privilege into account will find that the most important factors are wealth and education, certainly not sex.
    - epgui 4y ago
      I'm not denying that wealth and education are major hallmarks of privilege, but you can't be honest and say that sex is not an important factor in privilege. That's a whataboutism.

by epgui 4y ago

sharikous 4y ago

It's not a matter of "typically". A certain political side is pushing to define "discrimination" to apply only against certain groups. That use is not typical especially when you consider history and the fact that it still differs from the view of the constitution. Moreover it strikes me as disingenuous (like the Soviets calling Western news disinformatzya). Where does discrimination have a positive meaning? I am pretty sure that the folks who are against this law will also be against it if you call it "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" once you explain the meaning to them. From a meritocratic, humanistic, democratic perspective it is just morally wrong however you spin it.

epgui 4y ago
This idea of a meritocratic system you have is very incomplete. I'd really recommend listening to what Michael Sandel has to say about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewckuxa9hw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewckuxa9hw
- sharikous 4y ago
  Even if you accept his caution about merit it is still morally wrong to make sweeping decisions on basis of sex if you hold to democracy, humanism, individualism... Actually an honest take of taking privilege into account will find that the most important factors are wealth and education, certainly not sex.
  - epgui 4y ago
    I'm not denying that wealth and education are major hallmarks of privilege, but you can't be honest and say that sex is not an important factor in privilege. That's a whataboutism.