Is Standing Up for the Right Thing Discrimination Against the Opposite?

[1137]

Racists, misogynists, sexists, homophobes, religious discriminators, exclusionists, fascists, totalitarians......

Is standing up to them, standing up for equal opportunity and individual freedom, somehow discriminatory against those individuals and their view of how the world should be? Where do we draw the line?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Racists, misogynists, sexists, homophobes, religious discriminators, exclusionists, fascists, totalitarians......

Is standing up to them, standing up for equal opportunity and individual freedom, somehow discriminatory against those individuals and their view of how the world should be? Where do we draw the line?

No it is not discrimination.

 

[1137]

No it is not discrimination.

Now tell them that

 

[Flame]

I think the line gets drawn when the other party begins to infringe other's basic human rights.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Racists, misogynists, sexists, homophobes, religious discriminators, exclusionists, fascists, totalitarians......

Is standing up to them, standing up for equal opportunity and individual freedom, somehow discriminatory against those individuals and their view of how the world should be? Where do we draw the line?

There is an easy distinction between oppression and freedoms. Does the discrimination target people or ideas? Limiting what a bigot can do is discriminating against his idea. A bigot who refuses service to a demographic of people would be discriminating against a person. That is no good.

So next time we see someone getting muddled with "well I'm being oppressed because "x" or "y" ", just ask yourself, is it the idea or the person being discriminated against?

 

[David1967]

Racists, misogynists, sexists, homophobes, religious discriminators, exclusionists, fascists, totalitarians......

Is standing up to them, standing up for equal opportunity and individual freedom, somehow discriminatory against those individuals and their view of how the world should be? Where do we draw the line?

Sometimes it can be. And where to draw the line? Now that is a good question. I draw the line against any type of violence or destruction of property, or rioting. Basically things that would make one side as bad as the other.

 

[idav]

Racists, misogynists, sexists, homophobes, religious discriminators, exclusionists, fascists, totalitarians......

Is standing up to them, standing up for equal opportunity and individual freedom, somehow discriminatory against those individuals and their view of how the world should be? Where do we draw the line?

An aversion to various types of bigotry is the opposite of discrimination. In fact all those types you named are just as much free as any other sort of folks. We try and draw the line at the point people begin to infringe on the rights of others, for example, being able to discriminate is not an inalienable right because it infringes on a basic foundational principle..

 

[Deidre]

If their view of the world stems from hatred of others and thus wanting to marginalize others, then it wouldn't be discrimination to stand up to them, IMO.

 

[Aštra’el]

What do you mean, standing up for the "right" thing?

 

[Willamena]

Racists, misogynists, sexists, homophobes, religious discriminators, exclusionists, fascists, totalitarians......

Is standing up to them, standing up for equal opportunity and individual freedom, somehow discriminatory against those individuals and their view of how the world should be? Where do we draw the line?

It's only discriminatory if you do it based on their race, gender, who they sleep with, what religion they practice, etc.

We draw the line at being like them.

 

[Quintessence]

Racists, misogynists, sexists, homophobes, religious discriminators, exclusionists, fascists, totalitarians......

Is standing up to them, standing up for equal opportunity and individual freedom, somehow discriminatory against those individuals and their view of how the world should be?

I wager that depends on how you choose to look at it, and on the details. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. With respect to legal cases, no is probably the more proper response given those are not protected classes. For everything outside of the law, like day-to-day interpersonal interactions, I'd lean on a yes.

Where do we draw the line?

"We" do not draw lines. Individuals make stuff up as they go along, which may or may not be line-like. Even where they are line-like, the moment you have a social animal with lots of interpersonal interactions, you end up with a fuzzy social consensus. It's not capable of being concrete thing like the speed of light or some such.

I sense some of the aim of this, intentional or otherwise, is to make a case for some sort of moral high ground? Hmph. I wave my hand dismissively at such notions. If one's ethics are based on having so-called high ground over the other guy, you're doing it wrong, IMO.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Discrimination isn't inherently wong.

We discriminate against pedophiles and murders by removing them from society. We should do the same with hypernationalists and religious radicals.

We don't really remove those people though. They might have to serve time for actual behaviors which caused harm, but it's rarely life sentences for any of those. And though there is most certainly social stigma, they're not usually restricted from coming and going most places.

 

[Kemosloby]

You can't choose right or wrong without first discriminating between the two.

Discrimination; recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

If everybody remained seated there would be no problems.

 

[Kemosloby]

So lets stand up for sitting down until everyone is seated.

 

[crossfire]

Racists, misogynists, sexists, homophobes, religious discriminators, exclusionists, fascists, totalitarians......

Is standing up to them, standing up for equal opportunity and individual freedom, somehow discriminatory against those individuals and their view of how the world should be? Where do we draw the line?

Is exposing a false "virtue" and showing it for what it is discriminatory?

 

[Laika]

Racists, misogynists, sexists, homophobes, religious discriminators, exclusionists, fascists, totalitarians......

Is standing up to them, standing up for equal opportunity and individual freedom, somehow discriminatory against those individuals and their view of how the world should be? Where do we draw the line?

Only if its built on lies. Otherwise no.

 

[idav]

You can't choose right or wrong without first discriminating between the two.

Discrimination; recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

If everybody remained seated there would be no problems.

Judgment is not necessarily descriminatory. Discrimination is unbalanced or favoritism types of judgements.

 

[Kemosloby]

Judgment is not necessarily descriminatory. Discrimination is unbalanced or favoritism types of judgements.

You have to discriminate before judging. Discrimination is an Orwellian hijacking and demonization of a once useful word like discriminate. It's turned into an arbitrary buzzword which can mean whatever politicians want it to mean..

 

[1137]

Perhaps "discrimination" itself isn't inherently negative? That some discrimination is good and others not so good?

 

[idav]

You have to discriminate before judging. Discrimination is an Orwellian hijacking and demonization of a once useful word like discriminate. It's turned into an arbitrary buzzword which can mean whatever politicians want it to mean..

The word can mean bigotry which is what the op is asking. Is it bigotry to not allow racism?