I will begin a new, regularly irregular series called "Politically Incorrect with @schattenjaeger" in which I will air politically incorrect opinions, and attempt to argue for them. Maybe a weekly thing, I'm not sure yet.
This is done for engagement; feel free to come and debate, and I will debate back. I will reward good arguments with upvotes, whether I agree with them, or not. Agreeing is not the key, I will look at overall quality of the argument.
Everybody is focusing on the money right now, but let's try to also celebrate the fact that Steemit won't ban you for 30 days for an unpopular opinion!
Let's bring some entertaining engagement to Steemit! And less "Upvoted and followed!"
Discrimination is a Human Right
Sure to ruffle some feathers.
I remember being taught in school that discrimination is wrong, and should always be condemned. On the surface, it makes sense. Not only because it's a feel good statement, but also because it's rarely studied further; it's just thrown around without looking beneath the surface. People also have different definitions for discrimination.
So, what is discrimination, really?
Here's what a Google search gives us.
The first definition falls flat on its face right away, since something like "unjust" is completely subjective and open to interpretation. It can mean anything, so therefore it doesn't mean anything. Take ten guys off the streets and ask them what "unjust" is, and you'll likely get ten varying responses. They can be similar to one another, but different nontheless.
However, let's say this applies to something like hiring.
If I'm starting a strip club, and looking for strippers to hire, surely I would discriminate based on age. It's obvious to everyone that I can't hire an 80 year old stripper - unless it's a strip club for people with a very specific kink, and I won't go there in this post. Go search pornhub, if you want to learn more.
Sex is another big and obvious factor; I doubt male strippers would attract heterosexual males as customers. And if they are the demographic I'm going for, discriminating against male strippers makes sense, and should be widely accepted.
Race is probably the one that will elicit emotions the most.
However, it's entirely doable to do a study or questionnaire about my target demographic's preferences, and if those preferences state that I should go for a specific race, be it white, Asian, Arab, black, latino, or whatever combination, then that's the race I should go for at the expense of others.
Most of you should be with me still.
This probably seems reasonable, so the problem is with the term "unjust" - or any variation of "unfair" - but since it doesn't mean anything, it can't be used as an argument.
But let's say my strip club was now forced to have quotas on strippers, based on age, sex and race. All groups should be equally represented.
Would you be ready to have such a quota on your own social circles?
You'd be forced to have an equal amount of people from all imaginable groups as your friend, and failure to do so would lead to punishment.
Because what a lot of people fail to realize is that companies are run by people, big and small. No company is - yet - run by robots. At the end of the day, it's a person in charge, and his or her tends to be a big part of their daily life.
So, I'll ask you this: at what point does a business become big enough where it becomes okay to forcefully control its hiring practices?
If we're not okay with regulating our social circles, when does it become okay to regulate who an ice cream stand owner does business with? And why?
It's simply illogical for a private citizen to be allowed to be free from these equality mandates, but as soon as he or she takes a risk and becomes a business owner, he or she is suddenly forced to interact with people he voluntarily would not interact with.
Case in point: bakeries forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, even though a gay wedding went against their personal views.
At the same time, people would understand why it would be wrong to force a private citizen to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or any wedding, for that matter, against their will.
This sort of separation between private people and business owners should not exist.
In our private lives, we all discriminate, all the time.
On top of that, most of it is so trivial to us, we may not even pay attention to it.
Our social circle consists of people we have voluntarily chosen to be a part of it; there are always people left out. People are left out based on a number of things, some of which can be things such as race, age, sexual orientation, etc. It can also be because we consider the people who are left out as trash. For whatever reason.
So, we discriminate against them.
If you ask them, they may call it unfair, or unjust, so it would meet the definition above.
Being able to freely choose our social circles, and the people we interact with, is a fundamental human right. Without it, there can be no freedom.
If you disagree, allow me to choose your social circles for you, then. I bet you wouldn't like that very much.
Whenever we prefer a person over another, we are discriminating against the other person. You don't want to be friends with everyone, you don't want to have sex with everyone, and you don't want to do business with everyone.
Luckily, you don't have to, yet. But that may happen if the gospel of "Discrimination is wrong" gets out of hand.
Some business association is already being forced.
I hope it doesn't spread into our "private" lives.
If you disagree, let me know, and let's debate!
While you offer an accurate assessment of the state of society, your entire post is utterly defeatist and assumes there will never be progress. I don't blame you, I know you're an extremely pessimistic bloke.
By overwhelming historical evidence, however, the human species has gotten exponentially less discriminant, less violent and more "fair". This has ultimately led to a far more peaceful and benevolent society, though there's still a long, long way to go. Just five hundred years ago, there would be a fair chance you'd never return home alive if you ventured out of your town. While you may say that's the natural order of the world, I'd argue there are far superior orders.
There's no reason to believe that this trend will not continue, and humans as a species have the potential to evolve further towards peace.
Finally, there's a huge difference between choosing people you want to hang out with, and willingly desiring physical and mental hurt on others.
You can choose. That'd be interesting.
From the perspective of someone that has been knowingly discriminated against since four years of age, including in your lovely country I have to say. People are pussies.
I can understand people not enjoying the discrimination, it is quite unfair but, such is life. I am a much stronger person for the bullying as a child and those that blame others for their position are most confused. Boohoo, man up.
I would much rather have people openly against me than hiding behind political correctness or quotas.
Firstly, why would I want to associate myself with them anyway. Secondly, if I don't know they are bigots, how can I possibly have a chance to have a chat about it with them. Chats with bigots are interesting.
Having said that, I wrote a piece a few hours ago about self-voting comments with the fix for it being, 'don't be a dick.' This would apply here too.
Sure generalise all you want but at the same time, that 1 percent error rate may be the 1 percent that provides 50 percent of the opportunity.
Those that generalise based on superficial traits are likely not the ones that are the most intelligent or successful as the intelligent and successful are likely the ones that adapt the best to changing environments amd diversify their resources. When that involves people, it means getting to know the individual.
The problem is that people are very selective in their protection of groups and ideals. That is pathetic as it is discrimination itself.
I would much prefer more diversity in some regards otherwise thinking too easily becomes inbred. Overall, discriminate all you want but I see more value in getting to know someone first, even if it is possibly a waste of time.
But hey, I am talking to an alcoholic wife-beater probably. ;)
Discrimination used to be from my town / not from my town.
When travel was by foot or horse, most people never went more than 30 miles. And a new face in town was discriminated against. And well, you don't know them. They may be good, they may be bad.
This discrimination still happens in almost every small town.
Now, discrimination over hiring, by sex, is one of those button pushing things with me.
I worked construction, and it was the rare woman who could do the job minimally well. Women aren't as strong, and aren't as mechanically inclined. Being forced to hire women for quotas was absurd to me. Basically it came to hiring any woman who showed up on the site. And you gave them menial tasks like fetching ice, or a nothing job like counting nails.
And if you want to know true discrimination, try to be a male teacher. Especially in K - 6. It takes a man with a very thick skin to live in that environment. You are a child rapist by default (although statistics prove the opposite is true). And you are shunned by all the women who believe this is a woman's job.
Being discriminating is a right. Not being able to discriminate in hiring means I will just never have a large company.
Honesty is absent in these politically correct arguments, and it's good to see someone else point it out.
There's a sea of contradiction in their arguments. People are now talking about "safe places" while at the same time allowing men to use the women's. They talk about women's equality, yet they ignore obvious violations of these rights when a certain religion of Arab origin violates them. They allow men to compete in women's athletics, simply because these particular men "feel" they are women.
Human beings are, by design, rational creatures that feel. We are not the reverse--feeling creatures that rationalize. Reason is the foundation of a sane society, and emotions and feelings should be put into the context of our natural existence, not what we wish to be true.
The word "discriminating" used to be used as a complement; "He has discriminating taste..." it was a synonym for wisdom, intelligence, saavy. It was discernment in a sense.
Using discrimination to willfully harm someone, for no other reason than that you don't like their race, I and most would agree that is wrong. The answer of "Is discrimination wrong?" should be--"It depends." Any other answer is likely charged with some emotional baggage.
I like this kind of rational reasoning. Somehow people lost it. I'm a strong believer in Poincare :
I'm not sure. Poincare made this quote at the 75th anniversary of our university.
In essence it means you take scientifically proven facts as truth and from there on you form your own opinion.
I know it sounds romantic but in my opinion it's a very healthy attitude
Hmm. That's mighty idealistic and admirable, but I'm not sure I can honestly say that thinking never submits itself to a dogma, at the very least. Isn't appreciating a logic a sort of dogma, as well? One that I subscribe to, or at least attempt to.
It looks like I posted this on the wrong level so :
I'm not sure. Poincare made this quote at the 75th anniversary of our university.
In essence it means you take scientifically proven facts as truth and from there on you form your own opinion.
I know it sounds romantic but in my opinion it's a very healthy attitude
A very good point! I never even thought of the fact that muslim bakeries were left out of the whole debacle.
Oh yeah, they know who the soft (aka civil) targets are. I also don't hear any SJWs fighting for the right to draw Muhammad.
That fact - and it IS a fact - demonstrates that the GayStapo are targeting Christianity, and do not give a damn about "equality" or "equal rights." If they did, we would have long ago seen lawsuits filed against every Muslim bakery, wedding photographer and florist in the United States. People need to understand this before they have no liberty left.
The first definition of the word DISCRIMINATION is ***politically 'correct'. ***
'Unjust or prejudicial' by whom's standard? It is also a false definition, a manipulation in and of itself.
The second definition is correct: to differentiate.
Any time a ambiguous definition is given, it is done so for the purpose of controlling meanings by actors that have no natural power to control otherwise.
In other words, changing the definition of a term is a usurped power tool. Words are more powerful than the sword - and the powers that should not be are masters in language, and thus people manipulation.
We are all different. Women differ from men. Cultures differ. Political views do. What does not differ, and what should never be compromised are principles of morality and honesty.
😎
Yes, it's not talked about much, but language is a very powerful manipulation tool. It's worth taking notice of that words in political debates and whatnot are usually used based on their connotation, rather than their actual definitions. Words such as fascist, nazi, etc. Racist. These words have strong, negative connotations, and that's why they're powerful, and thus heavily used.
It's not often that people bother to look up definitions.
It's all about the emotion that the words elicit.
Indeed. If one takes words apart, such as NAZI, one arrives at National Socialist. Not many Liberals like that.
In the case of Liberals, the word has simply been stolen from those who stand for liberty. Liberals are taking liberties and granting themselves rights that they like to deny others. Free Speech comes to mind.
As Brigitte Gabriel said:
This also applies to symbols, which are the depiction of words. Probably a good subject for another part of the discussion.
The fight will not be won with violence. It will be won with removing the notion from common understanding that Political Correctness is beneficial to society,
This does not mean we should demean people to hurt them. However, it is no ones' right to be protected from (hurt) feelings. That very notion is ludicrous - and demanding it is a sign of collective mental disorder, as Michael Savage recognizes.
Furthermore, as Carol Quigly in his major work Tragedy and Hope in chapter one notes, and I paraphrase:
... we are seeing an increase in collective mental deficiencies being pushed as a new norm for all.
Love that subject - because it is THE most potent weapon that we can reclaim without shedding blood.
The redefinition of words, in particular, is a strong tool for the regressive left now.
A few years ago, the two definitions of discrimination you cited would have been reversed.
Sorry, you you haven't said anything to disagree with.
Try harder next time, say something so profoundly stupid that anyone NOT disagreeing with you would have to be a complete imbecile, obviously an idiot wouldn't even know you had written anything but a moron would be all too happy to argue.
Oh sorry those were all terms used to discriminate between levels of "intellectual disabilities" before we all became enlightened to the point where we can't even confront the concepts conveyed by certain words any more.
Yeah, he's got to up his super-shitlord level if he wants to catch the big flags!
No argument here. Every decision one makes is discriminatory. What, did you have peas tonight? You got something against carrots, buddy??
Interesting read. I really grow tired of all this political correct and incorrectness. I think it's hurting the country, if not world wide.
When you go even deeper to the root of the Latin word, discriminare, which means to divide, to separate, to select, and look at the words free of any emotional coloring added to it, you come to realize how deceptive and misleading the information coming out of google is. Beware.
The first amendment secures your freedom to associate and therefore your freedom to not associate. As for the wedding cake, my wife says she saw the baker on The View and he said he simply refused to bake an adult themed cake, not to bake a cake for gays. He claimed he was willing to serve them in any other way, just not make an adult themed cake.
Nice article. I enjoyed to read it. Thanks
Assholes are assholes, in every creed and color, I'll be friends with anyone who is willing to be friends with me, I may not like their opinions, but I won't sacrifice mine, if it comes down to a choice between one or the other, the one who put me in that situation can go. We all people, if that 80 year old man walks into your club and wants to be a stripper, give him a Teusday afternoon shift. He'll be a step up from what your probably serving that time of day, and your regulars will either get a kick out of it or he'll be booed off stage. I don't think it should be on us to discriminate. I believe Simpsons called it in a shop sign 'Our prices discriminate so we don't have to' I think one of our biggest problems today is economic discrimination, somehow people up to there grand children's neck in debt can turn up their nose at a homeless man who is free, albeit chained to the charity of you and me. Inside the secret hearts and wallets of men, broken, broke and to afraid to become something that's so ingrained to protest, the poor.
Do you differentiate someone not wanting to be friends with an asshole, from someone not wanting to be friends with someone of color, for example? If so, why?
Let's say that, to that person, both of those qualities are unpleasant.
Nobody is born an asshole. That's the difference. I've met plenty of nice people of every creed colour gender designation and sexuality. I've also met, and generally steered clear of the Assholes of similar. I don't have time for that energy. I've met rich assholes and poor assholes, being a good person doesn't take much effort, but some people choose to be assholes. Discrimination in our modern language in reference to your posting, is judging people by things beyond their control rather than how they are and what they know.
I actually disagree. I believe the person we become is more deterministic than we may think. It's all about the type of brain we get at birth; being a murderer doesn't make much sense, since it's highly illegal, and will likely lead to jail time.
But some people have the brain of a murderer, and will therefore become murderers.
Just like aggressive people may just have prefrontal lobes that are too small and adrenal glands that are too big, and those are features received at birth.
You may be knowledgeable to the fact that a lot of inmates have been found to have an xxy chromosome, you may also be surprised to find that in societies where people are not sexually discriminated against there are lower recriminations against them. Environment does more to change a persons perspective then birth can.
I don't believe any one to be preprogrammed, and although their raising may be unfortunate, generally as a society how we treat people is how they'll react.
If I act like an asshole, I expect to get treated like an asshole, the same goes for if I just want to have a fair shake to get through the day. Each of us eat for sustenance and shit when need be. No matter what colour or how big you have jacked your adrenal glands on steroids, but that's a mentality I can't get behind.
That's right, I discriminate against people who cheat, lie, steal and fight. I have zero tolerance for rapists and kiddy diddlers. Would I hire one as a baby sitter? Fuck no. But know one pops out of the womb plotting how to rape their way back into one.
People have to earn respect and trust. It is not a given. If someone has a discriminatory encounter as a person of color, or people with certain hairdo, it's part of an experience someone may have had with someone of that group previously. If that experience is due to immoral teachings, than it is up to the one being 'discriminated against' to prove them wrong. Again - morality must be part of the discussion.
When people are hurt by rejection - it is a symptom of pride and insecurity.
Just had to butt in there...
Oh - and since you like coffee, here is one for ya:
https://steemit.com/food/@globocop/how-to-make-your-coffee-taste-first-class
In business there is always the team Captain, which is responsible for decision-making. When the decision is "unpopular", its judge, but obey. If he signed a good contract — worn on the hands. But we can't be at work all the time. When we are "home" or in social networks we are able to choose our "inner circle", focusing on our preferences. In addition, there is a decentralized platform. Leave us the right to private life to be themselves. We not be able to be nice to everyone.
I completely agree with you=)))
I think the tide is turning in favor of rationalism in the west. Posts like this are helping. "Stunning and Brave", good sir.
Even the good and bad are relative terms. Some things considered to be good in a place, situation or time can turn out to be at another place or time. Discrimination is all the viewer's choice and his past belief system which was created by the concept of good and bad things. So it can never be so perfect.
I'm Jealous I didn't think of this idea first. Thank you for posting. l will try my best to debate this.
While Justice can sometimes hinge on personal morals; Justice also denotes what is lawful and or impartial. What you appear to be arguing against is impartial treatment of others in specific cases. While being partial may feel convenient at times; It is not practical overall.
Anti-discrimination laws and social institutions help societies function optimally. Take the civil rights movement for example. For whatever reason people don't like to acknowledge the fact that outlawing employment and voting discrimination was a huge economic boon for the US (particularly the south). Moreover, the economic elevation of black Americans did not negatively impact white pocket books.
We can look at your strip club owner and baker in the same light. Both are shooting themselves in the foot by not tapping gay wedding and granny fetish market. Every costumer has different need and catering to that insures longevity.
You might be surprised to hear that anti discrimination legislation already influences our private lives. The laws in a society inform peoples opinions on what is morel. Referring to anti-discrimination laws again; since they were put in place parental approval of interracial marriages has risen by ten percent every year. It went from %4 in 1958 to %89 in 2008. There was a time when executing gay men was legal and now over %60 percent of people have a gay friend. Since laws made it possible for at risk groups to live normal lives people are more likely to interact, befriend, and marry them.
How does anti discrimination go to far? The principle itself is based on balance and there is not a point past balance.
I also cant imagine having to have sex with everybody being all that bad either ;)
Mutig und wahr!
Every individual is biased and discriminates in some way as you wrote in the post. But this causes not too much problems as long as each individual discriminates in a different way, so that everybody may be discriminated by some but favoured by someone else.
It becomes more problematic if the discrimination is orchestrated and coordinated, for example by an ideology, so that substantial parts of the population discriminate against the same group of people. This is what anti-discrimination measures usually target and try to break up.
Thanks
I would go to your strip club.
Discriminate with care, people. :-)
Totally love the idea of writing politically incorrect stuff. It's so rare these days.
I would like to point out that there are some that no longer consider being able to freely choose your social circle as a human right. A few days ago I came across an article agruing that a white gay man must not discriminate against black guys and refuse to have sex with them. We're not talking about social circle, friends you hang out with, we're talking about having sex. You must not discriminate against black people even if you're only attracted to Latinos or fat bald Asians .
However, according to that article, people of color are allowed to refuse to have a white partner. The logic behind this was too complicated for me, so I gave up.
Looking forward to your next politically incorrect post.
Discrimination is human nature.
Every time we choose one thing, we choose "NOT" the other... so we discriminated. The only way to not discriminate at all is to allow your brain to become a soupy mush of apathy and not-caring.
So, from where I am sitting "Discrimination Exists." End of story.
@tarazkp used the phrase "Don't be a dick," which is precisely what my wife tells her coaching clients who have moral and ethical issues with this and that.
Seems to me that discrimination itself isn't inherently wrong... being a dick is what's wrong. Of course, we can argue for 100 years over the definition of "being a dick." I don't know that a general law could determine that... it becomes an issue of situational ethics.
What we need is a foolproof dick measuring device, as self-reported is notoriously unreliable.
Thumbs up for your approach man! Time to get real and honest with ourselves and to step out of our self-adorned self-righteousness and to see what is left of us after looking beyond our 'who we would like to be' as 'good and decent citizens'. Will read more of your stuff, and follow you around. Cheers!