A Society of Discrimination

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is discrimination an integral part of our society?

Car insurance companies look at your statistics (...other than, you know, accidents you've had...) and give you higher or lower rates.

Employers look at everything you put on your application with a statistical eye: If this person has this trait, what can I predict about them because of it?

Bald men are discriminated against, though they probably deserve it.

If you are short or ugly, you will not get a job at Hooters.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

How are you defining 'discrimination'? With a negative connotation? If not, then discrimination would seem to be an integral part of a well-functioning society. If you are using it's negative connotation, then while I wouldn't say it is integral (essential, necessary to make a whole complete), I would say it is very much a part of our societies.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

How are you defining 'discrimination'? With a negative connotation? If not, then discrimination would seem to be an integral part of a well-functioning society. If you are using it's negative connotation, then while I wouldn't say it is integral (essential, necessary to make a whole complete), I would say it is very much a part of our societies.

I'm not trying to pass judgment, but what I'm noting here is that the same exact kind of discrimination which people decry as utter evil that must be eliminated at all costs, actually seems pretty abundant, especially in contexts where nobody has made a stink and everyone just seems to accept it.

[The Tanager]

I'm not trying to pass judgment, but what I'm noting here is that the same exact kind of discrimination which people decry as utter evil that must be eliminated at all costs, actually seems pretty abundant, especially in contexts where nobody has made a stink and everyone just seems to accept it.

Perhaps I just don't have the same examples in mind you have and, if I did, I'd go "oh, of course, yeah, that thought didn't even cross my mind," but it seems to me that people wouldn't accept the same exact kind of discrimination they deem as utter evil in a different context. My initial thought is that they would believe there is good discrimination and bad discrimination, but I may just be missing some obvious examples that would put me in agreement with you.

[Purple Knight]

but it seems to me that people wouldn't accept the same exact kind of discrimination they deem as utter evil in a different context.
My initial thought is that they would believe there is good discrimination and bad discrimination, but I may just be missing some obvious examples that would put me in agreement with you.

A good example is that both Blacks and males (as well as Indians and Eskimos, oddly) have more fatal car accidents, but car insurance companies are forbidden to discriminate on race, but allowed to discriminate on gender. If we really hated that kind of discrimination, why is nobody that upset that we still discriminate against males?

They can actually get around it by using zip code to discriminate, with the goal being to discriminate against Blacks. To me this illustrates how absurd it is, to allow some discrimination, but not other instances of the same kind of discrimination, which I guess I would call inherent trait bias. Good examples would be discriminating against people with blue eyes, dark skin, breasts, red hair, or no hair. Living in a certain zip code might not qualify I admit, but not everyone can control where they can afford to live.

[The Tanager]

My guess would be that lack of knowledge as well as how such things would get mixed up in the culture wars are the leading factors for the continued imbalances there rather than simply believing some discriminations are okay. Even then those would probably justify their discrimination because they think certain genders or races deserve it based on historical acts or something like that. I’m not saying it’s not hypocritical or imbalanced, just that it's probably not "seen" as the same thing.

[boatsnguitars]

If we really hated that kind of discrimination, why is nobody that upset that we still discriminate against males?

Ah, there are many upset about the "discrimination" against males: Trump supporters and incels.

Let's be clear, males, especially white males, are well taken care of in this world. Don't you worry about us. We're fine. Too fine , in fact. The problem is that if we looked into it a little more, we'd soon see that white males are starting wars, contributing to economic disparity, oppressing other people, etc.

So, as a white male, I recognize that I have to pay a little extra car insurance to enjoy getting great deals on housing, more job opportunities, etc.

I mean, first world problems suck, but I'll just have to bear the burden of the "discrimination" against me. It's my White Man's Burden... :-/

[Purple Knight]

If we really hated that kind of discrimination, why is nobody that upset that we still discriminate against males?

Ah, there are many upset about the "discrimination" against males: Trump supporters and incels.

Let's be clear, males, especially white males, are well taken care of in this world. Don't you worry about us. We're fine. Too fine , in fact. The problem is that if we looked into it a little more, we'd soon see that white males are starting wars, contributing to economic disparity, oppressing other people, etc.

So, as a white male, I recognize that I have to pay a little extra car insurance to enjoy getting great deals on housing, more job opportunities, etc.

I mean, first world problems suck, but I'll just have to bear the burden of the "discrimination" against me. It's my White Man's Burden... :-/

This is actually the view I share but it has the extreme drawback of not being able to claim the act of discrimination as an inherent wrong.

We happen to live in a world where it's obvious who's at an overall advantage, but imagine we manage to push it more toward the center, and overall equality. Then it's just going to be a scrum where everyone claims that they, as the unfavoured, may discriminate, while nobody may discriminate against them.

And once again the view itself is going to have to be adjusted to deal with the new reality. I don't like that. I think people have had enough of bait-and-switch from the Left. They already know very well that the sacrifices asked of them are right. But when you keep moving goalposts and not putting your chips on the table, this gives the other side the only legitimate ammunition they have.

If people have to listen to us, but they're looking for a consistent and fair view, it's probably better to tell them that discrimination is just wrong and devote some modicum of effort to stopping car insurance companies from discriminating against males because it's wrong. Since overall, that will have the better outcome anyway, and it's probably worth moving the big needle in the opposite direction if it avoids people bucking the whole thing because they say something like, well, yes, this is fair, but if they get this, in 10 years they will just change and say they now want that. And it's not a slippery slope argument if it's already happened a dozen times.

[boatsnguitars]

If we really hated that kind of discrimination, why is nobody that upset that we still discriminate against males?

Ah, there are many upset about the "discrimination" against males: Trump supporters and incels.

Let's be clear, males, especially white males, are well taken care of in this world. Don't you worry about us. We're fine. Too fine , in fact. The problem is that if we looked into it a little more, we'd soon see that white males are starting wars, contributing to economic disparity, oppressing other people, etc.

So, as a white male, I recognize that I have to pay a little extra car insurance to enjoy getting great deals on housing, more job opportunities, etc.

I mean, first world problems suck, but I'll just have to bear the burden of the "discrimination" against me. It's my White Man's Burden... :-/

This is actually the view I share but it has the extreme drawback of not being able to claim the act of discrimination as an inherent wrong.

We happen to live in a world where it's obvious who's at an overall advantage, but imagine we manage to push it more toward the center, and overall equality. Then it's just going to be a scrum where everyone claims that they, as the unfavoured, may discriminate, while nobody may discriminate against them.

And once again the view itself is going to have to be adjusted to deal with the new reality. I don't like that. I think people have had enough of bait-and-switch from the Left. They already know very well that the sacrifices asked of them are right. But when you keep moving goalposts and not putting your chips on the table, this gives the other side the only legitimate ammunition they have.

If people have to listen to us, but they're looking for a consistent and fair view, it's probably better to tell them that discrimination is just wrong and devote some modicum of effort to stopping car insurance companies from discriminating against males because it's wrong. Since overall, that will have the better outcome anyway, and it's probably worth moving the big needle in the opposite direction if it avoids people bucking the whole thing because they say something like, well, yes, this is fair, but if they get this, in 10 years they will just change and say they now want that. And it's not a slippery slope argument if it's already happened a dozen times.

I think we can still say discrimination is wrong and recognize our privileged position. Sure, the Left can get things wrong, but the Arc of Justice has always been driven by the Left. Conservatives today are far more Leftist than Conservatives 500 years ago. Hell, many Conservatives in Iran and ISIS are aghast that American Conservatives allow their women to wear a bikini! American Conservatives are far more Leftist than they'd ever admit. Abolition, Women's vote, mixed-race marriage, gay marriage, gay people in the workplace, Black people in the military, Cigarettes cause cancer, HIV causes AIDS, seat belt and helmet laws, gun safety, economic protections, consumer protections, child labor laws, etc... All were Leftist ideas that Conservatives fought against.
I'm not worried about the Left over-reaching - they are generally on the right track.

BTW: ShareAction assesses insurance companies and whether they are more Just in handling race and gender issues.

ShareAction aims to improve corporate behaviour on environmental, social and governance issues. The charity has launched numerous campaigns, building capacity among savers, charities, unions, faith groups and other civil society organisations to engage with investors to bring about change. ShareAction’s work recognises that the money individuals and organisations put into the investment system funds global corporations, who in turn have the power to change business practices that are harmful to people or the environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShareAction

https://shareaction.org/reports/insurin ... -a-ranking

[Purple Knight]

Sure, the Left can get things wrong, but the Arc of Justice has always been driven by the Left.

This is the real privilege. Everyone knows that however morality is now, in 20 years, it will go about 50% more to the Left. Even people who are scared of this know it to be the case.

I think we can still say discrimination is wrong and recognize our privileged position.

But then it's like seeing someone getting shot. Do we say, no, the shooter shouldn't be punished because the victim had privilege, and thus the shooting was good, because it took privilege away?