Discrimination - Real Talk
- [1.] Everybody stereotypes everybody... right?
'White' people stereotype 'black' people and vice versa.
Rich and wealthy people stereotype against those less financially capable and vice versa.
Men stereotype against women and vice versa.
Nationalities stereotype each other.
Different generations and age groups stereotype each other.
- [2.] Nowadays, some discrimination is more accepted and/or mitigated than others... right?
Does financial discrimination take precedence over racial discrimination? Aren't the wealthy and rich more likely to accept someone of like financial status of a different race than someone far less financially capable of the same race?
Aren't men more likely to discriminate against women (even of the same race) than against men (including those of different races).
- [3.] Expectations and desired responses (wrt pride and status) are greater factors in discrimination (from the point of view of our demands) than actual human value... right? Do we even know what human equality means?
Do 'black' people have a problem with the n-word or only when used by 'white'people?
Women don't want to be objectified... right? So there's no way they would exemplify objectification towards aspects like sexuality... right?
- [4.] Reverse racism is a thing... right? And what about reverse bias/discrimination of other kinds?
Bullying in school works both ways i.e. relatively smart people discriminating against relatively stupid people and vice versa. Also, those relatively physically capable vs those much less so.
- [5.] Racism is a 'value and numbers' game... right?
Financial discrimination is all about the value of the size of one's coffers.
Racial discrimination is not as impactful when the minority are biased against the majority who set the values and standards appreciated within a particular sphere of interaction.
Is begging for acceptance or equal consideration the right way to go about overcoming discrimination?
(These are just a few highlights.)
Comments (38)
OP, I've really got no idea what you're talking about. You said that there's other forms of discrimination besides racism and then you said some forms of discrimination are less reviled than others. Then you compared "reverse racism" with other kinds of "reverse discrimination" which really, just makes no sense. Reverse racism is already a stupid term but reverse discrimination is actually even dumber. Racism is worse for the minority than the majority, okay.
Then you ask if begging for acceptance is the right way to go about overcoming discrimination. I don't know if you've been paying attention or not but right now, there is not much begging going on. If you are overtly racist or sexist, you will be personally attacked, your business may be attacked and you may even be physically attacked and we've seen countless examples of that.
Even on this forum, go ahead and be racist or sexist, see how much begging occurs. You'll be ridiculed, insulted and banned. Overall, I think you need to reformat your OP into something with a better structure and rethink how you've worded some things.
The OP is good by me. If you don't get it, you just don't get it.
Imo, this has nothing to do with overcoming discrimination. Resorting to verbal attacks or physical brutality is a statement about the level of intelligence (emotional and intellectual) one employs. Not only is it counter intuitive to ending discrimination, it also fuels the fire often beyond control of the participants.
It's just how things are and I said it only to show that "begging" is really not a response to racism/sexism. You want real talk but you respond to criticism by praising yourself, I'll leave you to it.
I'm not aware of "countless" examples. I think what you're describing is social disapproval, and the response of the community to attitudes that are not approved, never mind tolerated. :chin:
I'm describing political activism, not social disapproval which is a separate thing and doesn't lead to anything I listed. It's not just political activism either, there are laws against discrimination of all kinds and corresponding penalties for non-compliance. There have been many scandals across the west about people going too far in their efforts to reduce racism, sexism, anti-lgbt, anti-transgenderism and so on. Within universities and businesses, utilising social media, biased news reporting and interviewing, interference in primary and high school education, political candidates in many countries across the west promising and trying to reduce these types of discriminations.
OP asks us to reflect on whether begging is the right way to go about overcoming discrimination when this is the approach of literally nobody.
That being said, I'm not even sure why you quoted me and told me you're not aware of "countless" examples. If all you're trying to do is tell me you think I'm describing social disapproval, you're wrong, not sure how you got that idea.
You seem to either not understand the point of the OP or to insinuate your own meanings into it. Allow me to explain with an analogy: there have been laws against stealing for over a thousand years, yet we haven't eliminated such acts. My point with discrimination isn't just about the type that is unlawful but all kinds. The most prominent discriminations are the subtle ones which have an air of deniability about them. At the same time the most common first response to racism is anger which precipitates into hate speech, violence, etc, none of which are useful.
That does not mean there lacks a way to overcome discrimination. In fact, the best method has been to employ reason. The foremost supporters of equality against all kinds of discrimination have been those devoted to application of reason. They could be philosophers, scholars, ordinary men and women, etc, however their method is intrinsically self-sustaining because it can withstand reciprocation. Even politicians who usually try to fake it sometimes slip up and get caught in their lies.
However, reason is not the path of least resistance for most people. Usually they want to demand appropriate consideration, declare their right to equality, defame the biased, etc, etc, which to me is kind of like begging for a certain level of acceptance since they all need acknowledgement from others. Hence that question in the OP.
Yes, and that's appropriate. Prejudice and discrimination against the most vulnerable is much more important than that against those with more power. It damages, sometimes destroys, their lives. Rich people will always come out ok.
I've come to think that focusing on class/economic issues rather than racial issues makes sense. It has become harder to pass and enforce racial affirmative action laws.
I once raised a ruckus when I said that white people don't like black people. My point was that even well-off black people face discrimination and suspicion from white people. And no, white men are not more likely to discriminate against white women than black men.
Quoting BrianW
No, the way to handle it is to demand acceptance, at least politically and legally. That worked pretty well with the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. There is still a long way to go.
Quoting BrianW
Where do these quotes come from?
Let me tell you that if you want to tell me you're coherent and I'm the problem, your clarification should at least look somewhat similar to your OP. Instead, you've just introduced several new ideas that aren't present in your OP. Also, "demanding is kind of like begging" but I'm insinuating my own meanings, aren't you just making up new meanings without explaining them?
Begging can entail demanding, declaring and defaming for you?
Besides that, I think you really need to make it clear what point you're trying to make. Points and arguments, not just claims. All I can say is that it's very hard to follow what you're saying here and I know that you think it's good but I think any discussion with you wouldn't go anywhere, I don't want to debate your many claims without knowing where it's going.
If you're going to quote in an OP (or any post), you need to say where the quotes came from for a start.
I don't think I agree. I think the OP would be ok if he would just identify the quotes. As usual, I'll leave it to you on the Council of Elders to decide.
Ok, the quotes are mine (consider them as a kind of soliloquy in reply to the numbered questions). Since they're under my name, aren't they automatically attributed to me?
What isn't clear?
That's not the point of what he or she said. It seemed implicit that people were begging. That this is response of, say, minorities to mistreatment. He is pointing out that there is no such rule that people beg, giving examples.
Now perhaps you meant that those few people who just beg are making a mistake. You could say that. Or you could say, yes, I meant that that is the main pattern out there and then suggestion what they should do instead. You might find they have done those other things, you might not.
But responding to him as if the only issue is strategic best option is missing the point.
Putting them in quotes indicates they are not you. Just as we take what you wrote without quotes as you. It would be odd of us to assume that when you quote, it is actually you just continuing to write.
Discrimination is a response to the overwhelming reality that what we are unaware of, disconnected from or not collaborating with can still interact with us in some way. By denying, excluding or devaluing aspects of our experience, we attempt to maintain a structure of reality we can satisfactorily predict, define and control. This renders everything that doesn’t fit into this structure as a threat.
Discrimination is the result of an irrational response to ignorance and fear. A top-down moral imperative isn’t going to work, and only inspires anger from all sides. Overcoming discrimination starts with increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. Whether that’s a call for authority to enforce it (through desegregation, equal rights, restructuring discourse and language, education, collaborative projects, etc) or initiated at an individual level, to me it’s the most effective solution.
Yes (at least from my point of view). But, is stereo-typification a form of discrimination? I don't think so. I don't think we stereotype to make people feel less equal to us. It can only be discriminating if directed towards that purpose. But then the same is true of any expression. So, why is stereo-typification often misrepresented as discrimination? I think it's because of negativity. For example, in some tv series, Canadians are often represented as being better mannered (more polite) than Americans (U.S.). But then, it is often attributed to naivety (stupidity).
Also, "black" people are often stereotyped as more violent than "white" people. Obviously that is not true. A case could be made for the number of "black" inmates but then there is always a corresponding case of the environment and living conditions. So, in a rich and wealthy american (U.S.) neighbourhood, what is the statistical comparison between the number of "black" and "white" law offenders of similar social and financial backgrounds? My guess is it would be a tie or close enough.
So, why can't Canadians just be better mannered culturally and then have that as an inspiration for others?
Why can't "black" people be physically dominant in their life expressions and then investigate whether that is what gives them the edge in sports activities?
My point is, without the right kind of reasonable impetus in our dealings within society, a simple thing as stereo-typification can be made into a monster that it isn't.
I don't know. I'm not sure. I think there's a universal understanding that some kinds of discrimination have lost whatever advantage they may have been employed to give. For example, racial discrimination does not mean anyone will become another's slave, not anymore. And, something like financial discrimination can work only because people are willing to demean themselves for the sake of money. However, that seems to be a personal "weakness" type of affair. (There are many poor people that do not succumb to that kind of "madness".)
Men discriminate against women primarily because of the prevailing stereotypes against women. I think while we're working towards gender equality, the particular channels through which the inequalities and biases are expressed have not been as comprehensively addressed for the sake of a quicker revolution.
Our gender stereotypes need to be updated. For example, women are still portrayed as being physically weaker even when they seem to perform more physical activities especially domestically. Meanwhile, for men, usually the less physically imposing guy is often represented as being swifter or more agile (in some cases, more intelligent). Also, men are often represented as better decision-makers when culturally it is women who appear to be more level headed in terms of resisting egotism.
So, maybe it's not that some discrimination is given more/less acceptance or mitigation, but perhaps there are other kinds of discrimination/biases which have received less attention, are equally detrimental and, in some ways, are just as captivating to the egotistical mind. It may be that discrimination wont really go away unless we illuminate every part of it, and its shadows.
(No one really says they're "poor and proud". Although, Socrates may have insinuated something close to that, if translated loosely or poorly :wink: )
Anyways, aren't the above statements the kind of nonsense that enable discrimination? If that pride is the consequence of possessing a "thing", doesn't that mean the lack of that "thing" is a cause for shame? Otherwise, we would all just be proud, period.
what would that look like? (everyone thinks all races are equal? everyone acknowledges 'race' is not a thing? the dominant cultural group being looked down on? or did you mean 'the belief that white people suck'?) Sounds like de-evolving...makes sense as a concept, but upon closer inspection, not a real thing (and semantically confusing).
Quoting BrianW you listed 'pride' statements, I just realized this quote might be confusing out of context.
Many different culture view 'pride' differently. But generally, I agree that 'pride' would not typically imply that all people are equal...and beyond that it implies that a certain characteristic (whatever one is proud of) is 'right' and anyone who possesses said trait is 'better'.
Quoting BrianW
Seems right to me :smile:
I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out what a discriminating (racially biased) response to discrimination (racial bias) would be. I mean, it is fundamentally still discrimination (racism), but it is also specifically a response. Does that make it reverse discrimination (racism)?
Taking these statements out of context separates them from their meaning and significance for those who utter them.
The original ‘pride’ statements are a response to assumptions that one should feel inferior for being ‘black’, for instance. The aim is to challenge the label’s negative connotations within the discourse. When people come back with statements such as “I’m white and I’m proud” in a discourse where being ‘black’ has connotations of inferiority, it speaks of white supremacy.
I should think that those determined to end discrimination/bias would have the presence of mind to point out that a "thing" is nothing to have pride in. Also, exemplifying a "thing" should be seen as a sign of immaturity.
I’m asking because it seems to me that you don’t really understand what it’s like to be consistently ignored, overlooked, dismissed, denied consideration, deliberately excluded, uncategorised and generally not counted - simply because of your ‘thing-ness’. Unless you’ve experienced the choice between accepting that you’re not a person, or doing what you can to ensure you’re at least considered - then I don’t think you can really understand what it means to say “I’m black and I’m proud”.
The way I see it, this pride statement means ‘I won’t hide my ‘black’-ness just to be considered as a human being - this is who I am, so take notice.’ It has nothing to do with flaunting anything OVER anyone else.
Quoting BrianW
You’ve got this wrong. It’s not in response to someone flaunting their ‘whiteness’. It’s in response to a silent assumption that there is the world that makes sense, that is expected, ordered and regular - and then there is ‘black’-ness.
Quoting BrianW
The ‘dumb-ass’ is the one who thinks ‘black’-ness and ‘white’-ness currently describe the same ‘thing’-ness in human experience. This is about restoring the pride of being a human being to anyone we might describe as ‘black’.
I have. And, my actions and reactions were stupid once upon a time. They don't have to be, still.
Quoting Possibility
In part, yes. Also, there are so many other "things" that we have that are far more significant. That pride statement only seems appropriate because of a certain level of ignorance shared by both parties in that dispute.
Quoting Possibility
No, I'm sticking to my opinion on this one. I think the response is validating the other person's point of view. The response shows a kind of fear that there may be some truth to the bias. I'm not saying discrimination should be totally ignored, but it should be fought against in principle. Equality can only be realised in principle through the laws that assert equality; beyond that, individuals have to apply the principles as best they can. That takes us to the sphere of subjectivity in which stupid people will say and do stupid things, and there is no way around it. If discrimination was a case of being denied acceptance then, all the people one was never friends with, all the societies and social circles one never became a part of, etc, would be proof of discrimination. There is no need for the racist to accept me (or anyone else) if the laws apply to us all equally. We just need to learn the right application of law. For example, we've all seen women in hollywood demand equal pay to men. And, credit to hollywood, they seem to be responding positively albeit not as promptly. However, they could just as well have refused and employed subtle tactics with the aim of maintaining their unequal status quo with regards to men/women earnings (some are attempting to do that). However, as an approximate example, suppose hollywood had a law that declared something like, "actors who accrue a certain minimum percentage of time are considered to be main actors and should all be paid equally including bonuses." With something like that there would have been no need to wait for a response because equal pay would have been certain and immediate. So it is with the law and in principle - once we understand equality, it becomes our duty to uphold it with utmost consideration in our actions. This means no one is exempt from being reasonable, not even those responding to the unreasonable.
Quoting Possibility
No amount of pride can be restored without the proper reason and understanding. Equality is a matter of principle not acceptance. "Blacks" and "whites" have been equal since the dawn of humanity. They haven't always acted with such understanding and for that they're both at fault (for the kind of mistakes that arise from that ignorance). The remedy - application of wisdom (right understanding), but not a propagation of the violence and hatred which stemmed from ignorant acts.
Human experience is a tool for extracting the value we designate as understanding. To that end, we transcend whatever "thing-ness" we experience. They are ignorant those who get caught up in the experience of "things" and deny themselves the upgrade of understanding which should be the hallmark of all homo sapiens.
Everybody wishes their response against discrimination is in the same context as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s great 'I have a dream' speech. In this case, wishes aren't horses. To be in the same context or even in the vicinity, there is a demand for great application of intellect, a greater application of compassion (for the attackers, retaliators and victims) and an unyielding focus on the right target (harmony and unity).
Therefore, it is unjust for "black" people to think they can use the n-word and deny the "white" people that same opportunity. If we know and believe the n-word to be derogatory, then it should be taboo for everybody.
I don't think objectification is discrimination unless it is only directed towards a particular people and not others. The truth of human relations is that we do objectify each other, men and women alike. However, it is not objectification in the ultimate sense of its meaning. It is more like we get caught up in the assumed and uncritical significance of the value of the "things" we have or consider. Objectification is just stupid (unintelligent, unreasonable) and has no indication in human relations because a fundamental proposition of human relations is that the participants are human, not objects. (This would mean that sexuality and objectification are diametrically in opposition.)
Therefore, with respect to women's sexuality, there is no call for objectification no matter how it is represented. Women, no matter how they express themselves, do not support, enable or propagate objectification. Being sexy or sexual is not a pass for overlooking the inherent humanity within or the deserved decency by everybody. So, even when a woman is dressed skimpily or in their birthday suit, it means nothing more beyond just that - that a woman is dressed however the hell she chooses. It doesn't turn her into an insensate artificial doll. Deal with that.
That being said, we should treat women with as much regard as men. I think it is half past the time we allowed women the same opportunities as men and, beyond that, whatever other opportunities they seek.
I agree with you that ignorance is what holds us back in relation to discrimination. But it’s not about pointing the finger of blame, declaring who is ‘at fault’ or attacking others because of ignorance or ‘stupidity’.
Quoting Possibility
You appear to be arguing for a top-down moral imperative. I’m saying this isn’t an effective solution in itself. Equality in the law is only the beginning - it sets the stage for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration to effect change at the level of subjective experience. This means compassion (not pity or disdain) for those who may struggle with this ‘upgrade of understanding’, who lack the education, discourse or subjective experiences to understand at this point. We need to be patient and gentle in how we interact if we hope to hold the moral high ground. Calling them ‘ignorant’ or ‘stupid’ is counterproductive, and is itself a form of discrimination.
I said that: Quoting BrianW
Quoting Possibility
I'm not calling them stupid to their faces. In this discussion I'm just pointing out the root cause.
These statements?:
Quoting BrianW
Only one pair seems tied to race.
Quoting Possibility
huh? what 'original pride statements' are being referred to?
Quoting Possibility
That seems true. Ok, ok. So you are just referring to the first pair of statements...Yes, I can agree that White Pride is a BIG problem while Black Pride is only a small problem (the small problem being that ALL pride is discriminatory in its implications). I guess to clarify further or I will get in trouble...White Pride is a big enough problem that society should takes steps (laws?) to discourage it; minority pride doesn't really harm people (but I would still count it as a problem, but more along the lines of how people being selfish is a problem).
I have now read more of the thread and found whoppers like this:
Quoting BrianW
So I get that you were likely just pointing out that the OP is playing Jordan Peterson type games, but my words only engaged a specific argument - yes, all 'pride' is discriminatory (of course Nazi pride is more discriminatory than pride in being good at hopscotch, but they all discriminate).
My questioning of reverse racism should suggest I am on your side, but I get the sense I may be missing something...feel free to point me in the right direction.
The point is to get people to think about what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said about fighting discrimination:
That it doesn't matter who is the majority or who is the minority. That there is no "little" discrimination in the fight against discrimination. That there is no reverse racism and it's all just plain old racism no matter where it comes from. Hate can't be dissipated by hate.
This seems problematic. Wouldn't ANY law designed to end discrimination, discriminate in some way?
Reminds me of the libertarian argument for an unregulated free market...well, yes, if we assume people are rational, caring, and knowledgeable at all times, then that would work great.
Unfortunately, people are quite flawed and sometimes we may have to violate an ideal for the sake of pragmatism.
I feel quite confident that MLK Jr., would have approved of the majority of Civil Rights legislation, despite the fact that it discriminates against bigots.
Similarly, it makes perfect sense to be pro-tolerance but still be intolerant of intolerance (even though it may violate some 'ideal' of tolerance).
I don't get it, because I'm wondering what you're quoting and what your take on it is.
I think the equality of law is such that it should allow everybody to be whatever they want. But it should not allow anyone to be under another's 'sword'.
Well, I assume you think it is ok that murders and thieves are 'under another's sword'?
If there is government, we are all under someone's sword (and without government, might makes right so I guess we would still be 'under someone's sword'). If it is democracy, there is the tyranny of the majority. A bill of rights can reduce this "tyranny", but not eliminate it. 'Society' does NOT want criminals treated equally, and 'society' is coming around to the idea that bigots should be treated as criminals.
While our justice system is not perfect, it can also be argued that, in part, the murderers and thieves are under their own 'swords' because they determine their own consequences. We cannot allow people to deliberately harm others, therefore, the law turns such antagonists into victims of their own hostility with the aim of discouraging future acts. It is not perfect but effective - perfect application of law would still not be so accommodating as to allow injustice for fear of offending the offender.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Ours is a flawed practice of government and democracy and should be improved. Our ideals may hint at something sublime but usually they aren't yet realised to the extent they can be readily practiced. Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have those ideals. The law should, in part, represent the ideals we hope to attain and, in part, provide the path towards their attainment. Presently, our laws are just demands without the comprehensive corresponding interpretations, executions and appreciation. However, more often than not, our failings are due to our ambition/discipline imbalance (that is, too much ambition vs too little discipline or great expectations and very little effort applied).