4 ms·
On "reduced linguistic precision": Another example (this is a hard one imo) "discrimination". It is used in the US in an important legal document, a part of a
by ncr100 1y ago
On "reduced linguistic precision":
Another example (this is a hard one imo) "discrimination". It is used in the US in an important legal document, a part of a powerful legal social right.
It's both the NEGATIVE and unjust social process of dividing minorities, often segregating them away from the resource-plenty enjoyed by majorities -- basic 'good favor', low prices, neighborhoods with food oases.
And it's also the POSITIVE or NEUTRAL term of "making a fine distinction and discerning". Such as, "The experienced journalist listened intently to the politician's statement, applying a keen sense of intellectual discrimination. She was able to quickly discern the subtle ways in which key facts were being selectively highlighted and crucial context was being omitted, allowing her to call out the misrepresentation rather than accepting the narrative at face value." (gen'd by ai <3)
It was once an efficient term for identifying careful critical thinking. I speculate we do less of this as we have fewer words to do this with, nowadays.
I suppose "bigot" and "bigotry" ought to have been used by the US when it made its civil rights advancements.
- jfengel 1y agoWe designed the civil rights code so as to be least unacceptable to bigots. They feel that bigotry is an unalienable right, and to be honest, it took some serious rereading of the Constitution to not make it so. Even now they are finding that the Constitution does not in fact allow civil rights, and the Civil Rights Act is being pared away. You can call it out by whatever name you want, but in the end a lot of Americans want that and you don't have the overwhelming political force required to override them. The one small upside: they'll tell you that you're only making it worse by name calling. That's not actually true. It may not make things better, but it is not the cause of it. Arguing about words is just a common tactic to get you to stop talking about the actual subject.
- KerrAvon 1y agoIt’s important for sanity’s sake to remember that the bigots are a minority of Americans. They’re just a more reliable vote than the rest of us (and you can thank the Koch Brothers and John Birch Society for the multi-decade conspiracy that made this so.)
- jfengel 1y agoI believe that only a minority actively think of themselves as bigots. But in addition to that extremely reliable and enthusiastic vote are a lot of allies who say things like "I'm not racist but...". Often followed by "I just happen to have totally non bigoted reasons to always vote with the bigots".
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- FireBeyond 1y agoSimilar with many (not all!) libertarians. Funny how they're always espousing Republicans as the way to go. Once upon a time, that may have made (some) sense, but the modern Republican party is ... "not very close" ... to libertarianism.
- opwieurposiu 1y agoIf agents of the state expend most of their of their energy fighting against each other, they will have little time left to spend on attacking the people. Therefore in a two party rule, libertarians should do what they can to pit one arm of the government against the other. Sometimes this will mean voting D, and sometimes R, whichever better disrupts single party rule.
- FireBeyond 1y ago> Therefore in a two party rule, libertarians should do what they can to pit one arm of the government against the other. Sometimes this will mean voting D, and sometimes R, whichever better disrupts single party rule. They "should", but somehow they always seem to find themselves voting R...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- afpx 1y agoWhich document, and why vague? It's not in the constitution. I checked ngram viewer, and it showed this document from 1937 that first used it in that context: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Jews_Jobs_and_Discrimination/0HzUAAAAMAAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Jews_Jobs_and_Discrimin...