I was reading about a group being discriminated against and how they wanted it to stop. Makes sense. There are fights against various forms of discrimination out there and some groups have seen great gains in this regards while others have not and some have seen the hatred grow. All in all though, are we being effective at solving the true issues or are we simply redistributing the symptoms?
I feel that there is a strong element of society which has to make one super protective of their roles in it and this leads us to feel our group is superior while groups with different attributes are inferior. I think this is the true opponent of those who hate racial discrimination, sexual discrimination etc etc.
The thing is, no one really identifies this monster as the opponent. This monster is like a hydra with many heads and we are fighting these heads separately. So, we strike a blow for racial equality and the hydra strengthens it’s religious intolerance or maybe decides that this year we all hate people from Grand Fenwick. The hydra couldn’t care less. It’s needs are met by us being able to feel we are in the good group fighting the good fight.
We need to no longer fight the symptoms by name but fight the underlying monster and clearly and openly admit that’s what we’re doing to really make a difference. It can’t be any more that discriminating against group x is bad, ok, then I’m gonna harass group y. What good is that doing? Groups supporting group x don’t hate group y but they won’t speak up about it as part of their fight because it is not.
If this is the case, is this battle actually even winnable? Why do we feel this need to feel superior and what else would sate that need? Is it essential for the species survival? And if it is essential to the species survival don’t we really need a better management system to satisfy it causing the least harm possible? Is that why the ancients tossed people into volcanos? Is the system in The Lottery better? At least it was random.
If we can’t solve the problem, then are we going to perpetually be fighting to not be in the bad groups and how should we look at groups fighting to lower the harassment of groups we’re not a part of knowing that the blowback might just fall on us?
The whole problem is that the entire world doesn’t share my beliefs and values. If you can fix that, I think we can solve the problem of discrimination.
What beliefs and values are intrinsic to being a woman or of another race or of another religion? What beliefs and values of these classes actually matter that they are different than yours? In what way are they hurting you, these different beliefs and values? Is the problem just because they’re different? That is exactly what I say is happening. The true purpose of discrimination is to arbitrarily discriminate so we can feel socially accepted as we are not part of the discriminated upon group. That’s the problem, not what the different beliefs and values actually are.
And no, I don’t necessarily think we can fix it, that’s why I created the thread. What is the best thing to do given that we can’t change our nature that drastically?
We first have to define “bad” discrimination. We all discriminate. When I picked the Italian BMT sub tonight instead of the Cold Cut Combo at Subway, I discriminated. Likewise, if I picked one girl at the bar last weekend that I liked better than another girl (or a man if I was so inclined), then I discriminated.
Your last post highlighted that you meant to state that racial or gender discrimination in job selection was bad. I think we have all gotten to the point where we agree with that (some stragglers aside). And you rightfully pointed out that some discrimination against some people is only done to make others feel superior.
We all agree. But where are the grey areas? And how do when know in those grey areas if someone is discriminating for good or bad reasons? Even in the absolutes, there are exceptions. If I am director looking to cast a part to play Abraham Lincoln, then Daniel Day-Lewis looks better to me than Ice-T, and I will use race as a factor in that decision.
But it seems that I have clearly misunderstood your OP. Where should we draw the line?
Humans are tribal. And we have certain cognitive biases that make us generalize and jump to conclusions.
Both these factors combine to make the kind of extreme discrimination the OP mentions possible.
On the first; our tribal nature, we’ve actually had a lot of success in expanding our tribe; making us feel more commonality with all other humans. Yeah, some might scoff at that, and point out that there are plenty of wars going on, and still genocides. But considering the number of people on the planet, and our history, it’s noteworthy how peaceful most people are most of the time.
On the second; our cognitive biases, that’s not going to change. Even in a hypothetical far future where we can safely improve the human genome and even the human mind, cognitive biases would be one of the last things we’d want to touch.
But OTOH, applying such biases to humans will get more and more watered down over time IMO, as there is more movement of people and sharing of cultures.
Another issue that needs to be remembered is that not all groups are discriminated against equally. To use the OP’s example both Group X and Group Y are discriminated against. Some would then argue that it’s only fair to devote equal amounts of resources to protecting the rights of both groups.
But suppose Group X faces ten times the discrimination that Group Y does? Is it really fair to devote equal amounts of resources to two problems when one problem is ten times larger than the other?
This hits at why I wrote the OP. To discuss ways to control factors beyond our control for the best possible results. Not perfect results. Right now, the groups are each allotting the resources they have to one issue and I’m not sure thats the most efficient way to deal with these issues since they come from the same basic sources as Mijin points out.
On the one hand, smaller groups can be more effective utilizing their resources than a bigger group, if the resources are inefficiently distributed it won’t help much will it?
Actually, I think they tried using the word intolerance as an overarching word but that word itself has its own issues which divert attention away from what you’re fighting.
I don’t know the answers but I have an opinion. I think it should matter not a whit what discriminations we hold in our minds. I’m not sure how to even enforce that. I think we can judge by discriminatory actions and grey areas for the most parts can be ironed out. I don’t believe there will be much support for someone not casting a person not appropriate for the role.
Besides, theres a lot of actual meaningful fights to fight before worrying about the exceptions. Who knows, if you get it down to the exceptions the problem may self correct.
I don’t really buy the idea that by lessening the discrimination against one group, you strengthen it against another. I don’t think history bears that out. Certainly, if you look at the US, discrimination against all out-groups has been decreasing steadily for more than fifty years, and we haven’t needed to invent new out-groups to discriminate against as a result.
The Ray Rice and Boko Haram scenarios ( among others )makes me wonder about that. Indignities against that large a group is one handy release valve for lots of folks. I don’t think we know how much discrimination in general is actually going on when totaled up. We hear about the news makers but I don’t think anyone has even tried to compile this statistic of cumulative rate of discrimination against ( all? ) groups. Have they?
As pointed out, every time you make a choice between A and B on any basis whatsoever, you are discriminating. Every hiring process is inherently discrimatory. So is ever process of picking things from a menu of options.
The legal position, generally speaking, is that discrimination is fine, unless it is discrimination in a particular context, and by reference to a particular criterion, that as a society we have chosen to prohibit.
As I see it, the OP is basically suggesting that we reverse the default, and treat discrimination as bad, unless it is in a particular context, and by reference to a particular criterion, that as a society we have chosen to deem acceptable.
I can’t say the idea appeals to me. We’d end up with far, far, far, far, far more exceptions to, qualifications of and deviations from our default rule than we have under the present system.
I’m not sure what about the Ray Rice situation makes you question this. Wife beating isn’t exactly new by any stretch. As for Boko Haram, I’d need to see some sort of evidence directly linking increased liberalization in Africa to the rise of Islamic extremism. Actually, let’s start with evidence of increased liberalization in Africa. Once we’ve established that, we can worry about how much terrorism that caused.
Discrimination is as loaded a word as intolerance. I’m not talking about great wrongs like hiring the most qualified applicant or picking the wrong actor. I mean small stuff like murder, knocking women out in elevators, dragging people behind trucks. Things like that.
Sure, that’s treating those forms of discrimination as bad. I don’t think they add that much positive to society thus I don’t really understand why defending these forms of discrimination is a plus which is why I’d like to pull them from the hiring decision type actions. That’s not to say a hiring decision can’t rise to the discrimination level but I’m pretty comfortable with how we deal with these situations.
I think people are either thinking that my thinking is extreme and I want every human discriminatory action under one umbrella but that’s far from what I’m saying.
Either that or maybe people are saying that unless we are extreme about it and fight any and every discrimination equally we shouldn’t even try to coordinate our efforts on these various fronts of the most pressing issues.
I’m saying that some forms of discrimination are based solely on an attempt to feel better as part of a particular group by discriminating against another group. That’s not about who you hire unless you made the decision because they were part of another group that you dislike. If it wasn’t, then it doesn’t need to be fought. If it does, then it does. Same with who plays Abe Lincoln.
No, it’s not new but it is current and it caused me to reflect on its pervasiveness. This thread made me reflect on it.
I have no answers about Boko Haram but I would be against their actions no matter from what ideas these actions sprung from. I don’t really equate them with ideas just reprehensible actions against innocent people. I don’t think any ideas are worth performing such actions.
I’m sure that there are many many more such examples out there that I am unaware of. Once I become aware of them, I will be against them too.
Two nights ago, from my netflix queue I watched The Purge.
Terrible little movie. I liked it but I don’t dislike many movies but by all I can tell, it was a terrible movie. The movie though, directly tries to answer my OP. It presents an alternative.
The premise is in order to have a society that is thriving and crime free 364 days a year they allow all crimes for one day where people can Purge themselves of their violent and antisocial tendencies. Now, I don’t think this is the answer but it is an answer to the question about whatcha gonna do.
I’m sorry. I don’t follow you. Are you trying to bracket murder, assault, etc as forms of discrimination?
I mean, sure, obviously a murderer discriminates by selecting this potential victim over that potential victim, but that’s not really where the social and moral evil of murder lies. I don’t see what connection you’re making or parallel you are drawing between discrimination on the one hand and murder, etc, on the other.
Or are you saying that, at the moment, we treat certain forms of discrimination as tantamount to murder, etc, while ignoring others, and this is unbalanced? Because, you know, the first part of that statement would plainly be completely untrue.
But is it better than it used to be? Do you think Ray Rice would be out of a job for beating his wife if this were 1945? Of course not, because they didn’t allow blacks in the NFL in 1945.
Well, I’m glad to know your opposition to enslaving underage girls isn’t conditional, but I’m not sure what this has to do with your OP.