How does a person come to understand discrimination?

[brothern]

It's exactly what you're contending. That the photographer has the right to discriminately pick and choose who she provides services to on the basis of the person's character, and that the person has absolutely no recourse.

On the basis of ANY REASON, actually, and yes, she absolutely does.

And that's not true about recourse. Hire another photographer. Buy a camera. Use your smart phone. Use your freedom of speech afforded to you from your natural human right to liberty to post about the photographer on social media. Etc.

Per the wiki, I grew up in a neighborhood that was 95.1% white. I was well into my teens before I actually came to be good friends with someone who was not a white, middle-class Christian person. Even so, I persisted with the thought that discrimination was not a problem. That those who complained were playing the race-card or acting as the victim, or that liberals were just being whiny when they talked about 'privilege'. I was never given the opportunity to understand that I was afforded huge benefit in American society, in that I never had to give thought to my race, religion, gender, etc.

In addition being the more fringe libertarian back then, I had the very stupid idea that people were entirely empowered to do whatever they wished. That as the quote above contends, offenders have a right to discriminate because people are afforded recourse when they face explicit or implicit discrimination. It was only after I spent time overseas, became good friends with people of different minority groups and had several gay slurs hurled my way that I actually "got it". It's one thing to say, "Christians have the right to refuse service!" than to actually be the one who is hurled out of the restaurant with ill-intent not just once, but multiple times. It's a rude awakening that changes your world view very quickly.

Of course, having once held these beliefs that discrimination is not a problem ... I can very easily recognize it in other people. My frustration now is trying to drag these people into "getting it" as well. How does one do that with a person, who does not have the potential of experience discrimination him/herself?

 

[Gipper]

It's easy to understand discrimination because it isn't rational - and many people who complain about it are also not rational. Just take a situation and ask yourself ,"does this make sense?".

If yes, it's not discrimination. If not, then you can begin to understand it and the roots of its irrationality.

 

[WCH]

Is it not also discrimination to chide the opinion of people who are force [by law or otherwise] into accepting something they feel is wrong, criminal or sinful?

IOWs the other side of the coin.

 

[Fisher]

Most animals, human or otherwise, have an innate disposition to pack, herd, school for their survival. In humans, that instinct has grown to be less of a survival thing because of our domination of other animals. to have manifested itself in other ways. Racism is just one of those ways that it has manifested itself. Humans are not above nature--we are still a part of it.

 

[Fenton]

Per the wiki, I grew up in a neighborhood that

was 95.1% white. I was well into my teens before I actually came to be good friends with someone who was not a white, middle-class Christian person. Even so, I persisted with the thought that discrimination was not a problem. That those who complained were playing the race-card or acting as the victim, or that liberals were just being whiny when they talked about 'privilege'. I was never given the opportunity to understand that I was afforded huge benefit in American society, in that I never had to give thought to my race, religion, gender, etc.

In addition being the more fringe libertarian back then, I had the very stupid idea that people were entirely empowered to do whatever they wished. That as the quote above contends, offenders have a right to discriminate because people are afforded recourse when they face explicit or implicit discrimination. It was only after I spent time overseas, became good friends with people of different minority groups and had several gay slurs hurled my way that I actually "got it". It's one thing to say, "Christians have the right to refuse service!" than to actually be the one who is hurled out of the restaurant with ill-intent not just once, but multiple times. It's a rude awakening that changes your world view very quickly.

Of course, having once held these beliefs that discrimination is not a problem ... I can very easily recognize it in other people. My frustration now is trying to drag these people into "getting it" as well. How does one do that with a person, who does not have the potential of experience discrimination him/herself?

We all discriminate, whether you want to admit it or not, but some people feel the need to perpetuate archaic stereotypes for their own political or economic interest.

Is there discrimination ? Sure. Is it a profound issue that affects the very moral fabric of the United States ? Hell No.

Should it be an issue in some idiots Politcal or activist motivations ? No.

As of 2013 its mention is exclusive to those who depend on its existence to remain relevent, so people like Sharpton or Obama will give you a reminder from time to time even though its not relevent.

Its too bad , because it waters down the legitimate charge of discrimination.

 

[brothern]

It's easy to understand discrimination because it isn't rational - and many people who complain about it are also not rational. Just take a situation and ask yourself ,"does this make sense?". If yes, it's not discrimination. If not, then you can begin to understand it and the roots of its irrationality.

How is discrimination irrational? If a discriminatory action was perceived to be irrational by the actor, the action wouldn't be taken and we wouldn't have a problem with it. Yet there a many people that have convinced themselves that they are perfectly rational and go about their day oblivious to it all.

Is it not also discrimination to chide the opinion of people who are force [by law or otherwise] into accepting something they feel is wrong, criminal or sinful? IOWs the other side of the coin.

Not at all. Rights and respect are given to individuals, not ideologies or beliefs. What's the purpose of having human rights if we consider them to be invalidated by the creeds of others?

 

[Gipper]

How is discrimination irrational? If a discriminatory action was perceived to be irrational by the actor, the action wouldn't be taken and we wouldn't have a problem with it. Yet there a many people that have convinced themselves that they are perfectly rational and go about their day oblivious to it all.

I said IS rational, not SEEMS rational. You're also ignoring the fact that some people are way too stupid to be able to tell the difference between rational and irrational.

With those people, you really can't do much.

 

[Fenton]

How is discrimination irrational? If a discriminatory action was perceived to
be irrational by the actor, the action wouldn't be taken and we wouldn't have a problem with it. Yet there a many people that have convinced themselves that they are perfectly rational and go about their day oblivious to it all.


Not at all. Rights and respect are given to individuals, not ideologies or beliefs. What's the purpose of having human rights if we consider them to be invalidated by the creeds of others?

It goes both ways. Perception that is and if a person feels like they were discriminated against that alone does not justify true discrimination.

So the perception of being the victm is just as relevent as the perception that ones actions are not discriminatory.

Also, mentioning institutionalized or any other discrimination doesn't make it relevent either. At least in the context of a legitimate issue.

For example, in the 90's the Democrat party manufactured the issue of racial discrimination in the lending industry. Called it " redlining".

What it led to was a destructive and systemic ans dangerous economic policy that led to a few years of cheap and easy credit. All based on a huge false narrative.

Still, those on the left use this false narrative as a means of control and manipulation perpetuating the victim mentallity for one purpose. To secure a vote.

And what has it done for those whov'e been mislead into thinking we live in a society that is filled with discriminatory laws and rules ?

 

[brothern]

We all discriminate, whether you want to admit it or not, but some people feel the need to perpetuate archaic stereotypes for their own political or economic interest. Is there discrimination ? Sure. Is it a profound issue that affects the very moral fabric of the United States ? Hell No. Should it be an issue in some idiots Politcal or activist motivations ? No. As of 2013 its mention is exclusive to those who depend on its existence to remain relevent, so people like Sharpton or Obama will give you a reminder from time to time even though its not relevent. Its too bad , because it waters down the legitimate charge of discrimination.

Perhaps it has occurred to you that the reason you don't think discrimination is a problem is that you're not discriminated against on a day to day basis?

Second - the bolded (sorry) is a self-fulfilling accusation. Imagine if some does you a wrong (carelessly spills a drink on you, fender-bender, etc.) and because you expressed frustrating, the person replies, "Jeezus! Fenton is such an angry, irrational person. What is your problem Fenton? Do you feel the need to complain to remain relevant? What a complete argument-baiter." How is that fair? You've done nothing wrong except voice your frustration, and now that person is accusing you of being the offender when it wasn't even your fault.

And given the "angry black person" stereotype in this country, don't you think that black leaders have a legitimate gripe when white people reply to anything that the black leader has just said with "Oh, he/she is just a race-baiting attention seeker!" You (Fenton) are doing exactly what Sharpton and Obama are accusing you of doing.

 

[Fenton]

Perhaps it has occurred to you that the
reason you don't think discrimination is a problem is that you're not discriminated against on a day to day basis?

Second - the italicized is a self-fulfilling accusation. Imagine if some does you a wrong (carelessly spills a drink on you, fender-bender, etc.) and because you expressed frustrating, the person replies, "Jeezus! Fenton is such an angry, irrational person. What is your problem Fenton? Do you feel the need to complain to remain relevant? What a complete argument-baiter." How is that fair? You've done nothing wrong except voice your frustration, and now that person is accusing you of being the offender when it wasn't even your fault.

And given the "angry black person" stereotype in this country, don't you think that black leaders have a legitimate gripe when white people reply to anything that the black leader has just said with "Oh, he/she is just a race-baiting attention seeker!" You (Fenton) are doing exactly what Sharpton and Obama are accusing you of doing.

First off, I've had nothing given to me in my 43 years of existence on this earth, chosing to work hard, make responsible decisions and plan my future carefully.

Second, I don't exist in the mindset that would alllow me to even recognize that I've been discriminated against. If someone starts to tell me that I've been forced into some inferior position by the actions of others I quickly exlplain that I alone am responsible for my actions and my location in life.

I have too much character and confidence to be told I'm intelectually maleable enough to be manipulated.

It must be exhausting to exist in that victim type of mentallity.

And NO, not the " Black Leaders " I pointed out. They do NOT have a" responsibillity" to poison the minds of the people who listen to their lies and their mischaracterizations.

They do NOT have the responsibillity to perpetuate this "you're always the victim, you have no control over your life " corrupted message that enriches them while it demoralizes those who they claim to represent.

It's typical, society is bombarded with this mysogonistic, violent music and culture that celebrates the worst aspects of the inner city but they're also expected to keep their mouths shut and their thoughts objective as those who claim to be discriminated against paint a pretty convincing picture of how they want to be percieved.

Sorry, you cant have both, its a unreasonable request.

"Discrimination" is more of a socio-political tool, a construct for control than it is a legitimate issue that can be dealt with on a reasonable level.

 

[Gardener]

Is it not also discrimination to chide the opinion of people who are force [by law or otherwise] into accepting something they feel is wrong, criminal or sinful?

IOWs the other side of the coin.

People are chiding you for thinking there is something wrong with murder or theft, are they?

 

[Fenton]

People are chiding you for thinking there is something wrong with murder or theft, are they?

Illegal activities have been justified time and time again in the interest of " equality" or in the interest of " desperation through discrimination".

That is they had " no choice ".

A good example would be holders refusal to prosecute the black panthers. I promise, he's using some racist narrative to justify their actions.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

If you want to know what it feels like to be discriminated against, just be an top notch A-hole. Most people won't want anything to do with you!

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's easy to understand discrimination because it isn't rational - and many people who complain about it are also not rational. Just take a situation and ask yourself ,"does this make sense?".

If yes, it's not discrimination. If not, then you can begin to understand it and the roots of its irrationality.

Lets use a very simple example. If I have been burned by a stove then I will learn to be wary of stoves. If I have never been burned by a stove, but repeatedly warned of their dangers and told of others that have been burned by stoves, then I am also apt to be wary of stoves. Is being wary of stoves irrational in either case?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is it not also discrimination to chide the opinion of people who are force [by law or otherwise] into accepting something they feel is wrong, criminal or sinful?

IOWs the other side of the coin.

No. That is simply disagreement and perhaps bullying. Now if they simply looked at you and, based upon that alone, decided what your opinon was disagreeable then that would be discrimination.

 

[Gipper]

Lets use a very simple example. If I have been burned by a stove then I will learn to be wary of stoves. If I have never been burned by a stove, but repeatedly warned of their dangers and told of others that have been burned by stoves, then I am also apt to be wary of stoves. Is being wary of stoves irrational in either case?

Nope. However, if someone told you that "stoves only burn black people", it'd be irrational.

 

[WCH]

People are chiding you for thinking there is something wrong with murder or theft, are they?

That's not the question I posed nor did I identify myself as the target of said discrimination.

Wanna try again?

 

[Mach]

If you want to know what it feels like to be discriminated against, just be an top notch A-hole. Most people won't want anything to do with you!

lol, if only that were true. Assholes with power are still sucked up to, just look at all the big industry movers and shakers who are also top notch A-holes. Hell, they'll probably make a movie about you...

 

[WCH]

No. That is simply disagreement and perhaps bullying. Now if they simply looked at you and, based upon that alone, decided what your opinon was disagreeable then that would be discrimination.

Perhaps it's just reverse discrimination? And I'm currently invisible.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nope. However, if someone told you that "stoves only burn black people", it'd be irrational.

Perhaps you are missing my point. Racial discrimination, like being wary of stoves, is a learned behavior, not an instinctual or hereditary inborn trait. Something that is learned (being wary of stoves), whether from personal experience or simply from instruction (education?) by those that you trust can also be countered by logical explanation or by providing proof (perhaps by example) that it is not logical, thus it can be unlearned.

Just as not all blacks are dangerous criminals (or exhibit some other bad trait/behavior) niether do all stoves pose a risk that cannot be managed. Learning how to interact with stoves (or blacks) and thus enjoy that experience without suffering any harm only requires learning to recognize and avoid the dangers of a stove (or a black person) while understanding the benefits to be had by not avoiding them.

 

[StillBallin75]

Per the wiki, I grew up in a neighborhood that was 95.1% white. I was well into my teens before I actually came to be good friends with someone who was not a white, middle-class Christian person. Even so, I persisted with the thought that discrimination was not a problem. That those who complained were playing the race-card or acting as the victim, or that liberals were just being whiny when they talked about 'privilege'. I was never given the opportunity to understand that I was afforded huge benefit in American society, in that I never had to give thought to my race, religion, gender, etc.

In addition being the more fringe libertarian back then, I had the very stupid idea that people were entirely empowered to do whatever they wished. That as the quote above contends, offenders have a right to discriminate because people are afforded recourse when they face explicit or implicit discrimination. It was only after I spent time overseas, became good friends with people of different minority groups and had several gay slurs hurled my way that I actually "got it". It's one thing to say, "Christians have the right to refuse service!" than to actually be the one who is hurled out of the restaurant with ill-intent not just once, but multiple times. It's a rude awakening that changes your world view very quickly.

Of course, having once held these beliefs that discrimination is not a problem ... I can very easily recognize it in other people. My frustration now is trying to drag these people into "getting it" as well. How does one do that with a person, who does not have the potential of experience discrimination him/herself?

I've said before that the ability or unwillingness that one is afforded benefits and privileges is part and parcel of privilege itself. For the most part, those who are privileged can deny their own privilege (and by extension denying someone else's reality) and for the most part they won't be questioned or challenged on that assumption.

Other posters will have noticed that I make a lot of posts when privilege manifests itself or rears its ugly head. On top of that, its existence is backed up by tons of sociological research that illustrates differential treatment in housing, in the hiring process, in media portrayals, in academic life, in the legal/justice system, and elsewhere. What's dangerous about current race relations in America is not that overt racists and the KKK are a big deal. It's that all it takes for racial progress to be obstructed is to have large portions of the privileged majority to deny that their own privilege exists. Denial of the reality of a problem - denying that the problem even exists - is obviously the chief obstacle in getting that problem solved. In essence, what's scary is that racism can persist even in a society where no racists exist.

 

[Hard Truth]

The most important thing I have learned on this forum so far is that most bigots are genuinely unaware of their prejudices or have convinced themsleves that their prejudices are based in reality. (often because they are based on their personal experiences) Usually they also are unaware of how priveleged they are and what oppressed people experience.

I compare it to a fish, does it know that it is in water? Probably not until it has experienced being removed from the water.

I wish there was a way for more people to genuinely experience what it is like to be another race, gender, sexual preference, poor, immigrant etc. for awhile.

 

[Papa bull]

I wish that neo-liberals would stop hijacking perfectly good words and rendering them semantically useless for their intended purpose and leaving a void in the English language that was filled before they vandalized it. Among the words I'd like to see returned to their proper place:

Niggardly,
queer,
gay

and, of course.... discrimination.

Discrimination is, more often than not, a good thing. It is the ability to detect and discern fine differences between things. It is the ability to recognize a very fine diamond with outstanding cut, color and clarity and a yellow stone with visible inclusions and a piss poor cut. But these days, there is no word for that because as soon as you say "discrimination", visions of racist bigotry and "we don't serve you're kind around here" come to mind.

Discrimmination is a good thing. Being selective and caring about quality is a good thing. Figuring you know all you need to know about a person based on their color or some other stereotypical factor isn't actually discrimination at all, in my opinion. The ignorance inherent in that indicates a lack of it, in fact.

 

[shrubnose]

Per the wiki, I grew up in a neighborhood that was 95.1% white. I was well into my teens before I actually came to be good friends with someone who was not a white, middle-class Christian person. Even so, I persisted with the thought that discrimination was not a problem. That those who complained were playing the race-card or acting as the victim, or that liberals were just being whiny when they talked about 'privilege'. I was never given the opportunity to understand that I was afforded huge benefit in American society, in that I never had to give thought to my race, religion, gender, etc.

In addition being the more fringe libertarian back then, I had the very stupid idea that people were entirely empowered to do whatever they wished. That as the quote above contends, offenders have a right to discriminate because people are afforded recourse when they face explicit or implicit discrimination. It was only after I spent time overseas, became good friends with people of different minority groups and had several gay slurs hurled my way that I actually "got it". It's one thing to say, "Christians have the right to refuse service!" than to actually be the one who is hurled out of the restaurant with ill-intent not just once, but multiple times. It's a rude awakening that changes your world view very quickly.

Of course, having once held these beliefs that discrimination is not a problem ... I can very easily recognize it in other people. My frustration now is trying to drag these people into "getting it" as well.

How does one do that with a person, who does not have the potential of experience discrimination him/herself?

Unfortunately it will take some people forever to 'get it' and some people will never 'get it'.

That is a hard, cold, fact of life.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

 

[Captain Adverse]

I've said before that the ability or unwillingness that one is afforded benefits and privileges is part and parcel of privilege itself. For the most part, those who are privileged can deny their own privilege (and by extension denying someone else's reality) and for the most part they won't be questioned or challenged on that assumption.

Other posters will have noticed that I make a lot of posts when privilege manifests itself or rears its ugly head. On top of that, its existence is backed up by tons of sociological research that illustrates differential treatment in housing, in the hiring process, in media portrayals, in academic life, in the legal/justice system, and elsewhere. What's dangerous about current race relations in America is not that overt racists and the KKK are a big deal. It's that all it takes for racial progress to be obstructed is to have large portions of the privileged majority to deny that their own privilege exists. Denial of the reality of a problem - denying that the problem even exists - is obviously the chief obstacle in getting that problem solved. In essence, what's scary is that racism can persist even in a society where no racists exist.

I was about to respond to the member's statement below with something similar to your post. However, I could not have said it better myself. :thumbs:

First off, I've had nothing given to me in my 43 years of existence on this earth, chosing to work hard, make responsible decisions and plan my future carefully.

Second, I don't exist in the mindset that would alllow me to even recognize that I've been discriminated against. If someone starts to tell me that I've been forced into some inferior position by the actions of others I quickly exlplain that I alone am responsible for my actions and my location in life.

I have too much character and confidence to be told I'm intelectually maleable enough to be manipulated.

It must be exhausting to exist in that victim type of mentallity.

And NO, not the " Black Leaders " I pointed out. They do NOT have a" responsibillity" to poison the minds of the people who listen to their lies and their mischaracterizations.

They do NOT have the responsibillity to perpetuate this "you're always the victim, you have no control over your life " corrupted message that enriches them while it demoralizes those who they claim to represent.

It's typical, society is bombarded with this mysogonistic, violent music and culture that celebrates the worst aspects of the inner city but they're also expected to keep their mouths shut and their thoughts objective as those who claim to be discriminated against paint a pretty convincing picture of how they want to be percieved.

Sorry, you cant have both, its a unreasonable request.

I'm not going assume that you are "white," but it does sound like you have grown up without recognizing a position of privilege.

People who are born to privilege seldom recognize the fact and cannot understand the views of those who don't have a similar experience.

The children of rich people are a good example. Paris Hilton did not work for her weath, yet she shares all the privileges of it. When she goes to a club she expects to be let in right away as a matter of course; she does not consider the fact that you or I might not be let in at all. When she goes shopping she expects to be taken care of and shown the highest courtesy as a matter of course. She never considers that you or I might not even be greeted at the door. This isn't because she is an "airhead" or callous to the "plight of the poor," it's simply because she has never had to experience anything other than the privilege granted by the power of her families wealth.

The dominant members of a society like ours experience the same thing. They expect to be served when they enter a store as a matter of course. They never get told to leave simply because they are not wanted, nor expect to be followed around because they might shoplift. They expect to be treated with courtesy by law enforcement agents; never stopped because they are walking in threes, driving a car they aren't "supposed" to be able to afford, or just because they "look suspicious" and need to be questioned and searched.

Sooo, while you may not have ever experienced a situation which would give you pause and compel you to think "have I just been discriminated against?" does not mean that those who have are in no position to claim that such discrimination still occurs.