Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Categorization and discrimination

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup, thus legitimizing discrimination. Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against. That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup. The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed. The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power. It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination. Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:11:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup, thus legitimizing discrimination. Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against. That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup. The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed. The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power. It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination. Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.

I'm on the road so I can't say much. I would say it's possible to acknowledge differences without being discriminatory, thus putting the onus for change on the discriminatory parties rather than those who identify themselves by some label. Thoughts?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:14:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:11:04 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup, thus legitimizing discrimination. Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against. That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup. The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed. The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power. It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination. Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.

I'm on the road so I can't say much. I would say it's possible to acknowledge differences without being discriminatory, thus putting the onus for change on the discriminatory parties rather than those who identify themselves by some label. Thoughts?

Discrimination is hinged upon acknowledging social differences. The only true end to discrimination, in my opinion, is to reject such differences. And that includes self-identification.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:17:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:14:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:11:04 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup, thus legitimizing discrimination. Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against. That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup. The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed. The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power. It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination. Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.

I'm on the road so I can't say much. I would say it's possible to acknowledge differences without being discriminatory, thus putting the onus for change on the discriminatory parties rather than those who identify themselves by some label. Thoughts?

Discrimination is hinged upon acknowledging social differences. The only true end to discrimination, in my opinion, is to reject such differences. And that includes self-identification.

Does this ideal means social differences no longer exist or that they are no longer acknowledged?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:18:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:17:35 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:14:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:11:04 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup, thus legitimizing discrimination. Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against. That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup. The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed. The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power. It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination. Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.

I'm on the road so I can't say much. I would say it's possible to acknowledge differences without being discriminatory, thus putting the onus for change on the discriminatory parties rather than those who identify themselves by some label. Thoughts?

Discrimination is hinged upon acknowledging social differences. The only true end to discrimination, in my opinion, is to reject such differences. And that includes self-identification.

Does this ideal means social differences no longer exist or that they are no longer acknowledged?

That they are no longer acknowledged.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:28:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:18:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:17:35 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:14:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:11:04 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup, thus legitimizing discrimination. Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against. That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup. The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed. The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power. It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination. Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.

I'm on the road so I can't say much. I would say it's possible to acknowledge differences without being discriminatory, thus putting the onus for change on the discriminatory parties rather than those who identify themselves by some label. Thoughts?

Discrimination is hinged upon acknowledging social differences. The only true end to discrimination, in my opinion, is to reject such differences. And that includes self-identification.

Does this ideal means social differences no longer exist or that they are no longer acknowledged?

That they are no longer acknowledged.

Interesting. Sorry again for the short responses. I can't delete the older posts either.

Ethnic differences relate, in part, to the cultural differences of one's local or national environment. This can play out in terms of food, language, entertainment preferences, and in a larger sense, values, customs, traditions, behaviors, etc. How would individuals go about not acknowledging those differences?

Similarly, gender differences relate directly to differential biological experiences. How would we not acknowledge that?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:31:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:28:00 PM, Maikuru wrote:

It's impractical to completely wipe it out, but some basic differences are easily rejected -- for instance, the association of rap music with African-Americans, or even acknowledging "micro-aggression" or sympathetic sexism (chivalry; e.g. "ladies first").
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 5:45:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:31:19 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:28:00 PM, Maikuru wrote:

It's impractical to completely wipe it out, but some basic differences are easily rejected -- for instance, the association of rap music with African-Americans, or even acknowledging "micro-aggression" or sympathetic sexism (chivalry; e.g. "ladies first").

Thanks for getting rid of the other text lol

Can you clarify the micro aggression point? That isn't a cultural identifier, but rather a description of differential experiences akin to racism or sexism. Not acknowledging discrimination doesn't eliminate its existence.

Regarding the larger theme of the thread, you seem to be advocating a colorblind ideology, in which group differences are ignored for the sake of advocating a more humanistic approach. Research has shown that, at least in terms of schooling, such an approach is highly damaging for students and leads to decreased academic outcomes, psychological wellbeing, and social confidence. I will look for the pdf's for you when I get where I'm going.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 7:33:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup, thus legitimizing discrimination. Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against. That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup. The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed. The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power. It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination. Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.

I can't help but think of this: https://www.youtube.com...

Or this: https://www.youtube.com...
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 9:02:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:14:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
Discrimination is hinged upon acknowledging social differences. The only true end to discrimination, in my opinion, is to reject such differences. And that includes self-identification.

I don't see how the rejection of (social and biological) reality is going to be helpful in the slightest.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 3:50:14 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 5:45:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:31:19 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:28:00 PM, Maikuru wrote:

It's impractical to completely wipe it out, but some basic differences are easily rejected -- for instance, the association of rap music with African-Americans, or even acknowledging "micro-aggression" or sympathetic sexism (chivalry; e.g. "ladies first").

Thanks for getting rid of the other text lol

Can you clarify the micro aggression point? That isn't a cultural identifier, but rather a description of differential experiences akin to racism or sexism. Not acknowledging discrimination doesn't eliminate its existence.

I recently saw this example of a "micro-aggression," which basically said it's a micro-aggression for a white to sit with a group of white people, because if a person of any other race joined, they would feel uncomfortable. But that discomfort itself is racist, because it seems to create a divide between the two.


Regarding the larger theme of the thread, you seem to be advocating a colorblind ideology, in which group differences are ignored for the sake of advocating a more humanistic approach. Research has shown that, at least in terms of schooling, such an approach is highly damaging for students and leads to decreased academic outcomes, psychological wellbeing, and social confidence. I will look for the pdf's for you when I get where I'm going.

How can one not have a colorblind approach in schooling?

Without a colorblind approach, imo it's very tough to fight racism.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:28:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:

I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

- Again with this absurd idea of 'equality'! Universal equality only extends to basic human characteristics shared by the entire human race, otherwise it's meaningless & unjust. All human beings possess Intellect, thus all are eligible to Life, Liberty & Ownership. Being of different races, or genders... does no infringe on these rights. Aside from these basic rights legitimately warranted by all human beings, there is no universal equality, it's an open field. Being of different races, or genders... necessarily warrants some kind of discrimination in relevant aspects. Treating different beings equally is necessarily unjust to at least one of them.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup,

- People are different, duh! We are not a series of robots, we are extremely diversified & colourful beings.

thus legitimizing discrimination.

- When it is legitimate, then of course it is. When we talk about discrimination, we mean unjust discrimination. Differentiating between someone who has the right credentials for the job & another who doesn't is legitimate discrimination, otherwise it's blind injustice. Women & men are not equal genders, as they are, BY DEFINITION, of different genders. Similarly, not allocating some rights or dues to one gender over the other in aspect in which they are different (such as pregnancy), is necessarily unjust to one or the other.

Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against.

- Well duh! Women aren't simply not men, & cultures are, by design, different from one group to another.

That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup.

- That's the point.

The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different."

- Discrimination becomes a problem when those differences inadequately warrant some undue rights, or the opposite.

If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

- Non-sequitur.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed.

- This is a bunch of nonsense.

The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power.

- Non-sequitur.

It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination.

- We wouldn't know, would we, for that's a false analogy.

Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.

- Your idea of non-discrimination is profoundly unjust.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:31:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:28:47 PM, Yassine wrote:

Why do you think men and women are "different," for instance?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:33:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:31:03 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:28:47 PM, Yassine wrote:

Why do you think men and women are "different," for instance?

- The real question is, why do YOU think men & women are the same?!

- Evidently, as human beings, they are not ; as genders, they are, by definition.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:46:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup, thus legitimizing discrimination. Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against. That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup. The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed. The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power. It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination. Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.

Excellent post. I'm sure this will prompt more discussions in the future.
Tsar of DDO
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 11:29:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think the mere categorization of gender, race, et cetera, legitimizes discrimination.

The basic idea is that when one acknowledges that a person is a "woman" or a "black" or anything else -- by means such as clothing, marketing targets, culture, et cetera -- allows for the *classification* of a certain subgroup, thus legitimizing discrimination. Take, for example, the idea of "deodorants for women," or "African-American culture," both of which acknowledge and/or target a particular group of individuals once discriminated against. That acknowledgement allows for the categorization of those individuals as belonging to a separate subgroup. The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

There's been a lot of talk about "micro-aggression" on this site. But that very idea is racist/sexist/discriminatory, because it's basically legitimizing discrimination. It's allowing categorization of a certain class as opposed to others. Such categorization might be necessary at some periods in time, but they should be universally discarded when they aren't needed anymore -- else we risk resurrecting the discrimination that was once killed. The reason totalitarian states exist is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their power. It's the same reason for the existence of discrimination. Discredit any legitimacy to the claims of discrimination, and one can actually uphold justice.

I think in many situations cateregorization of people can be justified. For example if you are trying to sell dresses it's logical to target women as they are much more likely to buy them. If you are selling safety footwear it's logical to target builders as they are more likely to buy them. If you are selling Indian style clothes you target people of Indian ethnicity.

In other cases it might be that one category of people is more likely to commit a crime, or people from a certain place are more likely to commit crime. It's logical to assume people of different religions are likely to want to adhere to their beliefs and not contradict these beliefs so are less likely to eat certain meats, wear certain clothes or go to certain places.

It's also logical to categorize men and women and give them separate toilets, changing rooms etc. At a certain venue you might expect a larger male audience so provide more male then female toilets etc.

Obviously discrimination should be avoided but it's common sense I think to categorize people. It is often practical and economically beneficial.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:51:56 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 3:50:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:45:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:31:19 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/27/2016 5:28:00 PM, Maikuru wrote:

It's impractical to completely wipe it out, but some basic differences are easily rejected -- for instance, the association of rap music with African-Americans, or even acknowledging "micro-aggression" or sympathetic sexism (chivalry; e.g. "ladies first").

Thanks for getting rid of the other text lol

Can you clarify the micro aggression point? That isn't a cultural identifier, but rather a description of differential experiences akin to racism or sexism. Not acknowledging discrimination doesn't eliminate its existence.

I recently saw this example of a "micro-aggression," which basically said it's a micro-aggression for a white to sit with a group of white people, because if a person of any other race joined, they would feel uncomfortable. But that discomfort itself is racist, because it seems to create a divide between the two.

I'm still a little confused as to how the acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement of microaggressions does anything to prevent the actual acts of discrimination from occurring. Is the idea that the less we talk about discrimination, the less frequent it becomes, or perhaps that we are mischaracterizing innocuous behaviors as discriminatory?

Regarding the larger theme of the thread, you seem to be advocating a colorblind ideology, in which group differences are ignored for the sake of advocating a more humanistic approach. Research has shown that, at least in terms of schooling, such an approach is highly damaging for students and leads to decreased academic outcomes, psychological wellbeing, and social confidence. I will look for the pdf's for you when I get where I'm going.

How can one not have a colorblind approach in schooling?

Without a colorblind approach, imo it's very tough to fight racism.

The idea is again to acknowledge and appreciate cultural differences as uniquely valid.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 6:16:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

The first sentence is essentially a truism. The second takes a big leap (which I've yet to see justified here or elsewhere). Tempted to call it a non-sequitur (as someone else did prior), but for now I'll ask for that justification out of prudence.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 10:59:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
When a "micro aggression" becomes equated with racism, it's inherently racist.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:03:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 10:59:23 AM, tejretics wrote:
When a "micro aggression" becomes equated with racism, it's inherently racist.

How would you define these terms: microaggression, discrimination, prejudice, and racism?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:05:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:03:43 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/29/2016 10:59:23 AM, tejretics wrote:
When a "micro aggression" becomes equated with racism, it's inherently racist.

How would you define these terms: microaggression, discrimination, prejudice, and racism?

I meant a micro aggression such as the one described above.

"Discrimination" is unfair treatment; treating one group with lesser rights/greater prejudice than another. "Prejudice" is basically the dictionary definition.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:07:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 6:16:07 AM, someloser wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:31:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
The whole idea of discrimination hinges on classifying certain people as "different." If the people who try to fight against discrimination accept this classification, they're legitimizing the very discrimination they try to fight.

The first sentence is essentially a truism. The second takes a big leap (which I've yet to see justified here or elsewhere). Tempted to call it a non-sequitur (as someone else did prior), but for now I'll ask for that justification out of prudence.

Accepting the classification -- for instance saying "he's black, so this" and "she's white, so this" -- causes holding prejudicial views and preventing social acceptance. For instance, there's a social stigma associated with a man wearing clothes associated to those normally worn by women, yet still retaining a male gender identity. Society wouldn't accept it. In India, only 15.4% of women are employed, and the idea of a male homemaker is utterly rejected -- just because he's a man. Branding such a label often just leads to prejudice.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 7:14:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The very concept of micro-aggressions is illusory, but that's a subject I've already written a very great deal about so I won't repeat myself here.

What I will say is precisely "how" categorization lays the foundation for discrimination. The basic idea is this:

If we begin from the position that people can be categorized, we are establishing the "bulwark" for such categorization. The next question is "how are people categorized"? From more general, to more specific and discrete groups. For example, the first binary: minority and non-minority are "groups" which are probably the most bold. Minority groups are those whose existence is defined by non-membership in the majority.

But what is the majority? Ostensibly it's white people, but popular demographic shifts have generally made that less so; at least in contrast with what it once was. Ostensibly it's men, but women make up slightly statistically more people in the world than men. Ostensibly it's heterosexuals, but even heterosexuals are incidentally --in some cases-- inclined to exhibit homosexual tendencies. So, the lines between "majority" and "minority" are blurred, for these and other reasons, but assuming that they can be in fact drawn, let's move forward.

Now that we've written off the general group; there are now new and different kinds or methods of further subcategorization, principally on the basis of race, gender, and sexuality. Are you black, white, asian, indian, kind of black, kind of white, etc.? Male or female or somewhere in between? Gay, straight, bi or whatever?

When we begin from the position that people "must be categorized" and then we do that, even if the categories are overlapping, we are *identifying* those people as members of those categories. By implication, we are defining them outside of the norm, whatever this illusory "norm" is. So, you in calling someone a "gay guy" you are saying that he is abnormal in that he is not straight, where heterosexuality is the norm and therefore the baseline of what establishes the norm. Same with "blackness" or "arabness" or whatever; the kind of categorization doesn't matter. What matters is the ACT of categorization.

If I am a postmodern liberal, what that means is that I am going to see my black or my gay friends, not *first* as people who are my friends, but as my "gay" friend or my "black" friend, or whatever. That act is itself dehumanizing, and this is where diversity for its own sake (as well as the pursuit of it) is self-defeating: by talking about "differences" we are reinforcing the existence of those differences, which is especially problematic because those "differences" are themselves nothing more than fictional social constructs. They have no inherent meaning; they exist only in relation to our stereotypical understanding of human differences, and therefore those differences are, as much as emphasis of them is, total nonsense.

But, when you do that kind of "categorization" (like as an activity), because you are necessarily drawing lines between kinds of people, you are creating the kinds of conditions where those who are themselves "within the norm" are going to see those artificial differences as having more meaning than they do. For example, the "gay" v. "straight" binary is necessarily something that is going to cause in many hostile reactions to the "unlikeness" of the "other group" in relation to themselves. Postmodern and modern liberals call this "otherizing."

This is highly ironic, of course, because IT WAS THE POSTMODERN AND MODERN LIBERALS THEMSELVES which created the social constructs that made that kind of "otherization" possible. By now it should be clear that the entire problem is the level of consciousness on which these problems metastasize. If liberals of all kinds desire to create genuine tolerance of others; cultivate genuine acceptance, they will stop emphasizing categorical differences and adjust their way off conceptualizing the world to emphasize commonality on the basis of humanity, rather than categorically and sub categorically delineated inventions of "unlikeness" (i.e. differences on the basis of membership in the majority/minority; differences on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, etc.).
Tsar of DDO
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 1:13:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:07:26 PM, tejretics wrote:

Accepting the classification -- for instance saying "he's black, so this" and "she's white, so this" -- causes holding prejudicial views and preventing social acceptance.

- Non-sequitur, unless the statements are false.

For instance, there's a social stigma associated with a man wearing clothes associated to those normally worn by women, yet still retaining a male gender identity.

- That's due to this universal thing called 'social norms'.

Society wouldn't accept it.

- Unless it actually does.

In India, only 15.4% of women are employed, and the idea of a male homemaker is utterly rejected -- just because he's a man.

- Different societies, different times, different social norms. India is not Europe, nor is Europe of today the same as that of yesterday or tomorrow. Deal with it.

Branding such a label often just leads to prejudice.

- False labels do.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 4:54:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 1:13:45 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:07:26 PM, tejretics wrote:

Accepting the classification -- for instance saying "he's black, so this" and "she's white, so this" -- causes holding prejudicial views and preventing social acceptance.

- Non-sequitur, unless the statements are false.

The statements being false.


For instance, there's a social stigma associated with a man wearing clothes associated to those normally worn by women, yet still retaining a male gender identity.

- That's due to this universal thing called 'social norms'.

Which cause prejudice and discrimination.


Society wouldn't accept it.

- Unless it actually does.

In India, only 15.4% of women are employed, and the idea of a male homemaker is utterly rejected -- just because he's a man.

- Different societies, different times, different social norms. India is not Europe, nor is Europe of today the same as that of yesterday or tomorrow. Deal with it.

Social norms should change -- that's the point of the OP.


Branding such a label often just leads to prejudice.

- False labels do.

Yes. Including social norms. When I say label, I mean an "ought" claim, not an "is" claim. Like, "because she's a woman, she should wear (so and so)."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 4:56:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 7:14:29 PM, YYW wrote:

I agree with this entirely -- this is the best explanation of what I was trying to convey.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 4:57:52 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 4:56:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/29/2016 7:14:29 PM, YYW wrote:

I agree with this entirely -- this is the best explanation of what I was trying to convey.

Cheers

I'm glad to see that you get this sort of thing, because it requires a higher level of thinking than is conventionally employed by the postmodern liberals who sort of dedicate their lives to this kind of thing.
Tsar of DDO
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 10:04:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:07:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
For instance, there's a social stigma associated with a man wearing clothes associated to those normally worn by women, yet still retaining a male gender identity. Society wouldn't accept it. In India, only 15.4% of women are employed, and the idea of a male homemaker is utterly rejected -- just because he's a man. Branding such a label often just leads to prejudice.

Alright, I can agree with that. Though I will still contend that the OP's resolution is fundamentally flawed and will ultimately prove ineffective.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:21:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 4:54:54 AM, tejretics wrote:

The statements being false.

- Not necessarily.

Which cause prejudice and discrimination.

- LOL! NO. Social norms are just that.

Social norms should change

- If so, then only to other social norms.

-- that's the point of the OP.

- I don't see the link.

Yes. Including social norms.

- I don't think you understand what 'social norms' mean!

When I say label, I mean an "ought" claim, not an "is" claim.

- An "is" statement is a strong case for an "ought to" statement. That's how Law functions.

Like, "because she's a woman, she should wear (so and so)."

- 'Should', as in according to such & such social norms. Evidently. That's just how society functions. If you don't like it, go ahead & wear a dress to school, & expect everybody to accept that!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 7:32:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:05:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:03:43 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/29/2016 10:59:23 AM, tejretics wrote:
When a "micro aggression" becomes equated with racism, it's inherently racist.

How would you define these terms: microaggression, discrimination, prejudice, and racism?

I meant a micro aggression such as the one described above.

"Discrimination" is unfair treatment; treating one group with lesser rights/greater prejudice than another. "Prejudice" is basically the dictionary definition.

It sounds like you're saying that microaggressions perpetuate divisions, which are necessary for the existence of discrimination. Of course, discrimination (including such aggressions) occurred before the term was coined, so are you saying that discrimination is currently being bolstered by calling attention to it in this way?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...