Politically Incorrect with Schattenjaeger #1: Discrimination is a Human Right

I will begin a new, regularly irregular series called "Politically Incorrect with @schattenjaeger" in which I will air politically incorrect opinions, and attempt to argue for them. Maybe a weekly thing, I'm not sure yet.

This is done for engagement; feel free to come and debate, and I will debate back. I will reward good arguments with upvotes, whether I agree with them, or not. Agreeing is not the key, I will look at overall quality of the argument.

Everybody is focusing on the money right now, but let's try to also celebrate the fact that Steemit won't ban you for 30 days for an unpopular opinion!

Let's bring some entertaining engagement to Steemit! And less "Upvoted and followed!"

Discrimination is a Human Right

Sure to ruffle some feathers.

I remember being taught in school that discrimination is wrong, and should always be condemned. On the surface, it makes sense. Not only because it's a feel good statement, but also because it's rarely studied further; it's just thrown around without looking beneath the surface. People also have different definitions for discrimination.

So, what is discrimination, really?

Here's what a Google search gives us.

The first definition falls flat on its face right away, since something like "unjust" is completely subjective and open to interpretation. It can mean anything, so therefore it doesn't mean anything. Take ten guys off the streets and ask them what "unjust" is, and you'll likely get ten varying responses. They can be similar to one another, but different nontheless.

However, let's say this applies to something like hiring.

If I'm starting a strip club, and looking for strippers to hire, surely I would discriminate based on age. It's obvious to everyone that I can't hire an 80 year old stripper - unless it's a strip club for people with a very specific kink, and I won't go there in this post. Go search pornhub, if you want to learn more.

Sex is another big and obvious factor; I doubt male strippers would attract heterosexual males as customers. And if they are the demographic I'm going for, discriminating against male strippers makes sense, and should be widely accepted.

Race is probably the one that will elicit emotions the most.

However, it's entirely doable to do a study or questionnaire about my target demographic's preferences, and if those preferences state that I should go for a specific race, be it white, Asian, Arab, black, latino, or whatever combination, then that's the race I should go for at the expense of others.

Most of you should be with me still.

This probably seems reasonable, so the problem is with the term "unjust" - or any variation of "unfair" - but since it doesn't mean anything, it can't be used as an argument.

But let's say my strip club was now forced to have quotas on strippers, based on age, sex and race. All groups should be equally represented.

Would you be ready to have such a quota on your own social circles?

You'd be forced to have an equal amount of people from all imaginable groups as your friend, and failure to do so would lead to punishment.

Because what a lot of people fail to realize is that companies are run by people, big and small. No company is - yet - run by robots. At the end of the day, it's a person in charge, and his or her tends to be a big part of their daily life.

So, I'll ask you this: at what point does a business become big enough where it becomes okay to forcefully control its hiring practices?

If we're not okay with regulating our social circles, when does it become okay to regulate who an ice cream stand owner does business with? And why?

It's simply illogical for a private citizen to be allowed to be free from these equality mandates, but as soon as he or she takes a risk and becomes a business owner, he or she is suddenly forced to interact with people he voluntarily would not interact with.

Case in point: bakeries forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, even though a gay wedding went against their personal views.

At the same time, people would understand why it would be wrong to force a private citizen to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or any wedding, for that matter, against their will.

This sort of separation between private people and business owners should not exist.

In our private lives, we all discriminate, all the time.

On top of that, most of it is so trivial to us, we may not even pay attention to it.

Our social circle consists of people we have voluntarily chosen to be a part of it; there are always people left out. People are left out based on a number of things, some of which can be things such as race, age, sexual orientation, etc. It can also be because we consider the people who are left out as trash. For whatever reason.

So, we discriminate against them.

If you ask them, they may call it unfair, or unjust, so it would meet the definition above.

Being able to freely choose our social circles, and the people we interact with, is a fundamental human right. Without it, there can be no freedom.

If you disagree, allow me to choose your social circles for you, then. I bet you wouldn't like that very much.

Whenever we prefer a person over another, we are discriminating against the other person. You don't want to be friends with everyone, you don't want to have sex with everyone, and you don't want to do business with everyone.

Luckily, you don't have to, yet. But that may happen if the gospel of "Discrimination is wrong" gets out of hand.

Some business association is already being forced.

I hope it doesn't spread into our "private" lives.

If you disagree, let me know, and let's debate!

Sort:  

While you offer an accurate assessment of the state of society, your entire post is utterly defeatist and assumes there will never be progress. I don't blame you, I know you're an extremely pessimistic bloke.

By overwhelming historical evidence, however, the human species has gotten exponentially less discriminant, less violent and more "fair". This has ultimately led to a far more peaceful and benevolent society, though there's still a long, long way to go. Just five hundred years ago, there would be a fair chance you'd never return home alive if you ventured out of your town. While you may say that's the natural order of the world, I'd argue there are far superior orders.

There's no reason to believe that this trend will not continue, and humans as a species have the potential to evolve further towards peace.

Finally, there's a huge difference between choosing people you want to hang out with, and willingly desiring physical and mental hurt on others.

You can choose. That'd be interesting.

From the perspective of someone that has been knowingly discriminated against since four years of age, including in your lovely country I have to say. People are pussies.

I can understand people not enjoying the discrimination, it is quite unfair but, such is life. I am a much stronger person for the bullying as a child and those that blame others for their position are most confused. Boohoo, man up.

I would much rather have people openly against me than hiding behind political correctness or quotas.

Firstly, why would I want to associate myself with them anyway. Secondly, if I don't know they are bigots, how can I possibly have a chance to have a chat about it with them. Chats with bigots are interesting.

Having said that, I wrote a piece a few hours ago about self-voting comments with the fix for it being, 'don't be a dick.' This would apply here too.

Sure generalise all you want but at the same time, that 1 percent error rate may be the 1 percent that provides 50 percent of the opportunity.

Those that generalise based on superficial traits are likely not the ones that are the most intelligent or successful as the intelligent and successful are likely the ones that adapt the best to changing environments amd diversify their resources. When that involves people, it means getting to know the individual.

The problem is that people are very selective in their protection of groups and ideals. That is pathetic as it is discrimination itself.

I would much prefer more diversity in some regards otherwise thinking too easily becomes inbred. Overall, discriminate all you want but I see more value in getting to know someone first, even if it is possibly a waste of time.

But hey, I am talking to an alcoholic wife-beater probably. ;)

Discrimination used to be from my town / not from my town.

When travel was by foot or horse, most people never went more than 30 miles. And a new face in town was discriminated against. And well, you don't know them. They may be good, they may be bad.

This discrimination still happens in almost every small town.


Now, discrimination over hiring, by sex, is one of those button pushing things with me.

I worked construction, and it was the rare woman who could do the job minimally well. Women aren't as strong, and aren't as mechanically inclined. Being forced to hire women for quotas was absurd to me. Basically it came to hiring any woman who showed up on the site. And you gave them menial tasks like fetching ice, or a nothing job like counting nails.


And if you want to know true discrimination, try to be a male teacher. Especially in K - 6. It takes a man with a very thick skin to live in that environment. You are a child rapist by default (although statistics prove the opposite is true). And you are shunned by all the women who believe this is a woman's job.

Being discriminating is a right. Not being able to discriminate in hiring means I will just never have a large company.

Honesty is absent in these politically correct arguments, and it's good to see someone else point it out.

There's a sea of contradiction in their arguments. People are now talking about "safe places" while at the same time allowing men to use the women's. They talk about women's equality, yet they ignore obvious violations of these rights when a certain religion of Arab origin violates them. They allow men to compete in women's athletics, simply because these particular men "feel" they are women.

Human beings are, by design, rational creatures that feel. We are not the reverse--feeling creatures that rationalize. Reason is the foundation of a sane society, and emotions and feelings should be put into the context of our natural existence, not what we wish to be true.

The word "discriminating" used to be used as a complement; "He has discriminating taste..." it was a synonym for wisdom, intelligence, saavy. It was discernment in a sense.

Using discrimination to willfully harm someone, for no other reason than that you don't like their race, I and most would agree that is wrong. The answer of "Is discrimination wrong?" should be--"It depends." Any other answer is likely charged with some emotional baggage.

I like this kind of rational reasoning. Somehow people lost it. I'm a strong believer in Poincare :

Thinking must never submit itself, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to whatever it may be, if not to facts themselves, because, for it, to submit would be to cease to be.

I'm not sure. Poincare made this quote at the 75th anniversary of our university.

In essence it means you take scientifically proven facts as truth and from there on you form your own opinion.

I know it sounds romantic but in my opinion it's a very healthy attitude

Hmm. That's mighty idealistic and admirable, but I'm not sure I can honestly say that thinking never submits itself to a dogma, at the very least. Isn't appreciating a logic a sort of dogma, as well? One that I subscribe to, or at least attempt to.

It looks like I posted this on the wrong level so :

I'm not sure. Poincare made this quote at the 75th anniversary of our university.
In essence it means you take scientifically proven facts as truth and from there on you form your own opinion.
I know it sounds romantic but in my opinion it's a very healthy attitude

I am looking forward to the SCOTUS decision on the Christian bakery case...and note with interest how intently gay activists (Gaystapo) avoid asking Muslim bakeries to bake gay wedding cakes...you don't suppose they're showing bias, now, do you?

A very good point! I never even thought of the fact that muslim bakeries were left out of the whole debacle.

Oh yeah, they know who the soft (aka civil) targets are. I also don't hear any SJWs fighting for the right to draw Muhammad.

That fact - and it IS a fact - demonstrates that the GayStapo are targeting Christianity, and do not give a damn about "equality" or "equal rights." If they did, we would have long ago seen lawsuits filed against every Muslim bakery, wedding photographer and florist in the United States. People need to understand this before they have no liberty left.

The first definition of the word DISCRIMINATION is ***politically 'correct'. ***
'Unjust or prejudicial' by whom's standard? It is also a false definition, a manipulation in and of itself.

The second definition is correct: to differentiate.

Any time a ambiguous definition is given, it is done so for the purpose of controlling meanings by actors that have no natural power to control otherwise.

In other words, changing the definition of a term is a usurped power tool. Words are more powerful than the sword - and the powers that should not be are masters in language, and thus people manipulation.

We are all different. Women differ from men. Cultures differ. Political views do. What does not differ, and what should never be compromised are principles of morality and honesty.

😎

Yes, it's not talked about much, but language is a very powerful manipulation tool. It's worth taking notice of that words in political debates and whatnot are usually used based on their connotation, rather than their actual definitions. Words such as fascist, nazi, etc. Racist. These words have strong, negative connotations, and that's why they're powerful, and thus heavily used.

It's not often that people bother to look up definitions.

It's all about the emotion that the words elicit.

Indeed. If one takes words apart, such as NAZI, one arrives at National Socialist. Not many Liberals like that.
In the case of Liberals, the word has simply been stolen from those who stand for liberty. Liberals are taking liberties and granting themselves rights that they like to deny others. Free Speech comes to mind.

As Brigitte Gabriel said:

We must throw Political Correctness in the trash can where it belongs.

This also applies to symbols, which are the depiction of words. Probably a good subject for another part of the discussion.

The fight will not be won with violence. It will be won with removing the notion from common understanding that Political Correctness is beneficial to society,

This does not mean we should demean people to hurt them. However, it is no ones' right to be protected from (hurt) feelings. That very notion is ludicrous - and demanding it is a sign of collective mental disorder, as Michael Savage recognizes.

Furthermore, as Carol Quigly in his major work Tragedy and Hope in chapter one notes, and I paraphrase:

The extinction of a civilisation is preceded by the increase in {collective) mental illness in society.

... we are seeing an increase in collective mental deficiencies being pushed as a new norm for all.

Love that subject - because it is THE most potent weapon that we can reclaim without shedding blood.

The redefinition of words, in particular, is a strong tool for the regressive left now.

A few years ago, the two definitions of discrimination you cited would have been reversed.

Sorry, you you haven't said anything to disagree with.

Try harder next time, say something so profoundly stupid that anyone NOT disagreeing with you would have to be a complete imbecile, obviously an idiot wouldn't even know you had written anything but a moron would be all too happy to argue.

Oh sorry those were all terms used to discriminate between levels of "intellectual disabilities" before we all became enlightened to the point where we can't even confront the concepts conveyed by certain words any more.

Yeah, he's got to up his super-shitlord level if he wants to catch the big flags!

No argument here. Every decision one makes is discriminatory. What, did you have peas tonight? You got something against carrots, buddy??

Interesting read. I really grow tired of all this political correct and incorrectness. I think it's hurting the country, if not world wide.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.13
JST 0.029
BTC 58269.58
ETH 3138.31
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.43