The Logic of Discrimination...

[Moonlight Graham]

Your post is way too long and complicated for this type of forum.

I agree. Scott, if you want people to read and respond properly you have to try to be much more concise in your opening post. I don't have the time to read such a long post.

Discrimination is not caused by 'some identifiable genetic inheritance' but based on real or exaggerated expectations of behaviour. Store detectives don't follow black customers around because they think they're inferior but because in their experience, and based on statistics, they think they're more likely to steal. Companies might not hire natives because they feel they have a poor work ethic and reliability issues. People might be wary of Muslim newcomers because of what they have heard about their religious beliefs.

None of these are based on genetics or perception of genetic superiority, but upon cultural differences between groups.

I definitely agree Argus. Further, it's not even genetic or cultural etc. It can be with gay people too (homophobia), or women vs men, or any kind of difference people have from yourself. It's largely about stereotyping an identifiable group. When you negatively treat a person based on stereotypes of their group rather than treating everyone as individuals with their own merit, then that's discrimination.

Often, people simply fear what they don't understand. They also hate change. When people don't properly understand a certain indefinable group of people, they tend to more often stereotype them. People who don't have Muslim friends don't understand them beyond stereotypes or what the media or friends tell them (which are often false) because they aren't exposed to them, and so they "fear the other". Same with homophobia, many people who don't know anyone closely who are gay or lesbian will often stereotype them and fear them because they're "different". These "different others" are also often seen as a threat to the person who does the discriminating. They challenge the status quo, and people hate change, both changes to their internal belief system and in their own society and communities where they see these "others" as a threat to the status quo way of life or beliefs they wish to preserve.

People can also distrust an outside group they don't understand. In that way, it may be a bit of a survival or defense mechanism, which may have had more practical use in more dangerous historical times. Therefore, I think it can be a natural survival response, but also almost always not fair to the victims who aren't judged on individual merit as they should be, so we have to realize how we stereotype and that we shouldn't judge a group until we have intimate first-hand knowledge and experience getting to know them and varying circumstances.

[Scott Mayers]

"Caucasians", like the OP, feel hard done by and see discrimination against "their people" when the real discrimination of the past is being corrected by the government.

They see discrimination against the white man if the jobs available are preferentially give to non-whites or females to correct the discrimination that was pervasive in the past and is now being corrected.

The corrective action is not discrimination. That's where their definition is simply wrong.

I hate using my own status or experience as any normal reason to generalize from. But I don't use it in expectation to impose what your own thinking does in sync with majorities or sub-majorities. In your type of thinking, if I should have any justice to complain, I require formalizing another distinct group to defend it as the case is with women or Aboriginals. You don't fight racism/sexism/X-ism your disagree with by merely creating your own 'race', 'sex', or 'X', to positively stand for and fight for that instead. This is just behaving in kind to what you claim to oppose and why I see it as insincere mentality.

I DON'T propose that I 'belong' to the class, "male", "white", etc, as YOU and others are forcing upon me. My own argument is to show how I reflectively suffer, not ALL those YOU interpret me belonging to those stereotype classes to which you or others propose I fit in. I'm showing a counter-example to your presumption of what is or is not "white", "male", or "X". I would NOT stand for a Masculinity group to oppose stereotypes against men, for instance and disagree to those who do in the same way I don't support Femininity as a group. My position is if one feels a sexual unfairness, for instance, you become a Humanist as a group to not demonstrate bias for or against any one group over the other.

"Corrective" action IS appropriately discrimination because the word means to define distinct differences between things with clear boundaries. To 'correct' behavior is to look at the problem as defined in common of its elements without bias to favor one or the other in law. You and others in this mindset interpret the causes of special imbalances as due significantly to one's race or sex with complete ignorance. And so you believe that to repair this is to forcefully balance out the membership that what you FAVOR between the groups by FAVORING the ones who are perceived to be treated less FAVORABLY. All this does is to (1) Assert that the CAUSE of the disfavors of one group IS due to one or more of the other groups making them into the opposing 'enemy' and (2) Force laws to FAVOR your preferred group with ignorance that this implies DISFAVOR to at least some other excluded.

If you oppose that some Group A is behaving bad due to X, you don't look at group's B, C, etc, who suffer from Group A because of X and solve the problem by giving the other groups the equal power to X.

X IS the cause of the problems! This is similar to the NRA's irrational thinking in kind: Since people are using guns (an X) to harm innocent people (Group A), the NRA intrinsically believes that guns are not the problem and so believe the 'correct' solution is to encourage innocent people to fight back by buying and using guns equally.

If you see this logic, you'd KNOW that while the NRA actually overtly asserts favor for guns, they also FAVOR the group of their own, the Group who are innocent owners of Guns, by their own definition. In comparison, to take sexism as the equivalent of the 'gun' in the case of any unfairness against the class, women, some set of women stand up and argue 'corrective action' by NOT targeting sexism but the group, women ONLY, and do whatever it takes to ARM them with an opposing sexist policy of favoritism for women. And then who are the sincere idiots to NOT think this 'favoritism' FOR women doesn't logically imply 'disfavoritism' AGAINST men?

[Scott Mayers]

I agree. Scott, if you want people to read and respond properly you have to try to be much more concise in your opening post. I don't have the time to read such a long post.

Then you give me permission to simply ignore you too. If you want simplistic responses, go to Twitter, or, use a larger screen to read rather than your cell phone on forums. This topic requires more depth than a simple sentence or two could possibly do other than to vote for one side over the other.

I read you anyways! (How nice of me to give you the equal respect you don't of me, huh?) If you want any further response to you, it is in context to what I already wrote that you refuse to by default.

[Scott Mayers]

Jacee,

Although you've opted out here and removed specific responses here, I assure you that I or others are NOT taking an anti-Aboriginal stance (or to your assumed 'Neo-nazism'.) I'm against ANY Nationalism to which I've defined before to you and others. "Nazis", for instance is a Nationalism FOR the Aboriginal German or whom they perceived was the 'true' natives of the land simply based on historical pre-existent ancestors prior to immigration of others. So ONLY in the light of one defending an Aboriginal stance as if they ARE distinctly and rightfully a group of people deserving either GOOD OR BAD treatment is equally wrong to me.

Think of it this way: What is occurring is that people who demand recognition based on some genetic inheritance is getting some BAD treatment because they are being stereotyped with BAD factors. Yet you can't simply demand that people should simply learn to treat such a group as GOOD and maintain only GOOD stereotypes because it is the stereotyping that is causing the problem! Just because you assign people 'good' stereotypes doesn't solve the problem because moral or ethic values (assignments of 'good' or 'bad') are always relative to individuals and their group associations. If you don't want BAD stereotypes that cause BAD treatment, you can't impose GOOD stereotypes to assure GOOD treatment and require broadening the class to a larger general class, such as "people" rather than "Specific People A", "Specific People B", etc, to fix the problem. Then you assure that each person gets treated the same of all things in common.

The way the right-wing parties will often handle this may be to preserve "Specific People A" in exclusion of all others; the way the left-wing parties (here, anyways) merely takes the groups of people that are NOT "Specific People A" and inversely makes them significant. That is they might define the set of "Specific People B" + "Specific People C" + "Specific People D" +...etc, instead as the group(s) that should be favored. You can summarize this left-wing preference as "non-Specific People A" as it means the same as the above. What this demonstrates is that both are being equally racists and inappropriately discriminatory because you see things in black-and-white terms.

What I am proposing is to take the whole class of ALL people inclusively. Yet, I also propose breaking the boundaries (only in law) that define these groups distinctly for the purpose of created segregated rights based on nothing more than their cultural inheritance. It doesn't mean that we can't treat logical classes that are essential to us all for specific purposes. For instance, every individual in all peoples require both sexes to procreate or at least to be birthed as a cause from. As such, "Women" does act as a logical class with respect to a specific class in law as "Pregnant or impregnable Persons". This in law makes sense as it doesn't speak of whether a woman has the right or not to wear pink as this is absurdly irrelevant. But the 'pink' example is precisely what is being imposed as the significant logical rights that you or others are imposing has some rational right because this is a culturally defined concept.

[Moonlight Graham]

Then you give me permission to simply ignore you too. If you want simplistic responses, go to Twitter, or, use a larger screen to read rather than your cell phone on forums. This topic requires more depth than a simple sentence or two could possibly do other than to vote for one side over the other.

I read you anyways! (How nice of me to give you the equal respect you don't of me, huh?) If you want any further response to you, it is in context to what I already wrote that you refuse to by default.

I'm not trying to disrespect you, as a new member I'm just trying to help you get more discussion on your topic since I've been around these forums awhile and see how things work. All the power to you want to discuss things more in depth.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[eyeball]

Then you give me permission to simply ignore you too. If you want simplistic responses, go to Twitter, or, use a larger screen to read rather than your cell phone on forums. This topic requires more depth than a simple sentence or two could possibly do other than to vote for one side over the other.

This forum has discussed the issue of discrimination in dozens if not hundreds of threads to the point that simple responses are pretty much all that's required most of the time.

Use the time it takes to write a dissertation and spend it reading through the forum's old threads. Maybe something new that's never been opined about will result but I doubt it.

[Argus]

The corrective action is not discrimination. That's where their definition is simply wrong.

I'm not sure who gave you the idea you get to redefine words, but they were mistaken.

The corrective action for discrimination is to stop the discrimination and treat everyone the same. I note that no one in the "native rights' industry wants natives to be treated the same as everyone else. They in fact actively promote discrimination, as long as it's in their favour.

[Argus]

I definitely agree Argus. Further, it's not even genetic or cultural etc. It can be with gay people too (homophobia), or women vs men, or any kind of difference people have from yourself. It's largely about stereotyping an identifiable group. When you negatively treat a person based on stereotypes of their group rather than treating everyone as individuals with their own merit, then that's discrimination.

I generally agree. But it's about an approval or dissaproval of an expected or perceived group behaviour which then gives the assumption that a member of that group will fulfil that expected (real or imagined) behaviour.

Often, people simply fear what they don't understand. They also hate change. When people don't properly understand a certain indefinable group of people, they tend to more often stereotype them. People who don't have Muslim friends don't understand them beyond stereotypes or what the media or friends tell them (which are often false) because they aren't exposed to them, and so they "fear the other".

And with that you've lost me, at least partly. I don't entirely disagree, but you leave no room for the fact people actually DO understand and simply do NOT approve. You also assume that if you know one or two members of a group this is going to change your feeling of the group, when it's quite possible your interactions will confirm the stereotype, or, really do nothing at all. For since you can't state an individual's behaviour will conform to a group you also can't say a group will conform to the behaviour you see in an individual.

[Scott Mayers]

This forum has discussed the issue of discrimination in dozens if not hundreds of threads to the point that simple responses are pretty much all that's required most of the time.

Use the time it takes to write a dissertation and spend it reading through the forum's old threads. Maybe something new that's never been opined about will result but I doubt it.

At your 16,000 and some posts, I can understand. But I don't come to a forum merely to read your own 16,000+ posts among everyone else's from the past just to catch up.

[jacee]

What do you even mean by "there's no need to hate?" If you accept inheritance based on one's culture or ethnicity, the hate is coming from those defending these factors by imposing alternate hardships upon those excluded based on an equal STEREOTYPE that All White people are by default inheritors of wealth and privilege.

Gee ... maybe the colonial invaders should have gone to a land where there were no prior inhabitants with existing rights.

Hahahahaha!

Or maybe you should move elsewhere.

Canada has three founding peoples: Indigenous, French, English.

Canada has three legal systems: Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code, English Common Law.

Love it or leave it!

You have the right to complain ... but railing against the facts of our legal history and the Constitution that evolved from those realities ... well ... at some point it just becomes ... silly.

.

[Scott Mayers]

Gee ... maybe the colonial invaders should have gone to a land where there were no prior inhabitants with existing rights.

Hahahahaha!

Or maybe you should move elsewhere.

Canada has three founding peoples: Indigenous, French, English.

Canada has three legal systems: Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code, English Common Law.

Love it or leave it!

You have the right to complain ... but railing against the facts of our legal history and the Constitution that evolved from those realities ... well ... at some point it just becomes ... silly.

.

You have a right to your opinion. But regardless of what set of cultures have been conserved by 'our' constitution, it is not one I signed on for. I was born into this country and do NOT have any right to go elsewhere even if I wanted to. So I have every right to complain about such a constitution that discriminates against me and doesn't represent the individual as the most significant minority.

I've compared our system in a direct isomorphic relationship to the Nationalism elsewhere in history to show what we have to look forward to if we keep this mentality up. You, and not I, are in support of 'Colonialism' as this is precisely the same kind of Nationalism where we are expected to accept the authority of the very Royal Colonialists who devised the problems to which you think we should owe allegiance to. The 'agreements' of those past people had no right to even agree to any perpetual agreements of specific peoples in disrespect of the progeny that we are all inherited of.

And to make it sink home, if you are a female as you indicate, do you also think you should 'own' the tradition of requiring women to be treated as they were as the founders of this country interpreted where women stood then? You can't respect those ancestors' authority where you favor them and select out ones you don't approve of.

The same goes for the cultural laws here. You cannot accept laws that grant 'favoritism' to the stereotypes you like but toss away the ones you don't. If traditional cultures should be preserved, this should include the expectation to accept the bad ones as equally as the good. And this is why it WILL fail OR end up creating an ugly future for us all.

[jacee]

You have a right to your opinion. But regardless of what set of cultures have been conserved by 'our' constitution, it is not one I signed on for. I was born into this country and do NOT have any right to go elsewhere even if I wanted to. So I have every right to complain about such a constitution that discriminates against me and doesn't represent the individual as the most significant minority.

Complain away.

But you can't change history or the fact that you were born into a country that has three legal traditions.

And you have every right to seek another country without that complexity, if this one doesn't suit you.

.