SCOTUS Rules in Favor of New Haven Firefighters

[stuckincincy]

No, and no. I do understand that the word subset was probably not taught in one room schoolhouses but I figured that over 8-9 decades you may come across the word and thought to look it up.

 

No attempt at humor can avoid the liberal knee-jerk kick in the nuts, eh?

 

[Kelly the Dog]

No attempt at humor can avoid the liberal knee-jerk kick in the nuts, eh?

 

 

I didn't know that was an attempt at humor. Next time try to make it funny.

[Kelly the Dog]

So explain what the term "reverse discrimination" means.

 

I didn't know there was any argument anywhere over its actual definition. What's your point?

[Chef Jim]

I didn't know there was any argument anywhere over its actual definition. What's your point?

 

Arguement? No. Question? Yes.

 

To me it's a word used by the uneducated and you appear to be educated. So enlighten me on what the term means.

[stuckincincy]

I didn't know that was an attempt at humor. Next time try to make it funny.

 

Is it too much to hope that your Celica hasn't fallen over a hillside recently?

 

[Chef Jim]

There actually is such a thing.

 

Discrimination is not typically defined as just anyone discriminating against anyone, it is a majority group discriminating against a minority group. Reverse discrimination is when the minority group discriminates against the majority group.

 

Who made that up? Discrimination is a consideration bases on class rather than merit. Has nothing to do with a majority against a minority.

[Kelly the Dog]

Arguement? No. Question? Yes.

 

To me it's a word used by the uneducated and you appear to be educated. So enlighten me on what the term means.

 

Well the basic use of the term, to me, is the actual dictionary definition:

 

"Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, especially when resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of a minority or disadvantaged group."

 

Again, I thought that's what everyone thought it was. Maybe people think it means something else that I don't know about.

[DC Tom]

Well the basic use of the term, to me, is the actual dictionary definition:

 

"Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, especially when resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of a minority or disadvantaged group."

 

Again, I thought that's what everyone thought it was. Maybe people think it means something else that I don't know about.

 

The most basic definition is "drawing a distinction between two different things", in the sense that I can discriminate between a Toyota and a Ford.

 

In a more strict sociological definition, I'd think your're right (and I think I disagree with that definition - I don't think discrimination requires a majority. Witness apartheid.)

 

In an even more strict legal definition...I'm not sure if you're right or not. I'd have to check.

[Alaska Darin]

There actually is such a thing.

 

Discrimination is not typically defined as just anyone discriminating against anyone, it is a majority group discriminating against a minority group. Reverse discrimination is when the minority group discriminates against the majority group.

Not in any dictionary I've ever read.

[Kelly the Dog]

The most basic definition is "drawing a distinction between two different things", in the sense that I can discriminate between a Toyota and a Ford.

 

In a more strict sociological definition, I'd think your're right (and I think I disagree with that definition - I don't think discrimination requires a majority. Witness apartheid.)

 

In an even more strict legal definition...I'm not sure if you're right or not. I'd have to check.

 

How is "reverse discrimination" simply "drawing a distinction between two different things"? That's not right.

[DC Tom]

How is "reverse discrimination" simply "drawing a distinction between two different things"? That's not right.

 

Actually, I was arguing that your "dictionary" definition was incorrect. You were using a sociological definition. Though the correct dictionary definition of "discrimination" illustrates the silliness of the term "reverse discrimination": when you discern a difference between two things, you are making a discrimination. There's no "reverse" to it.

 

That also holds sociologically. Discrimination is discrimination. Period. It is entirely possible for a minority to discriminate against a majority (for example: I, as a genius, are in a distinct minority, and are discriminatory about it by holding you unwashed masses in contempt for it. Apartheid was a better example, though.) And there's nothing "reverse" about it; it's still discrimination, in both the semantic and sociological points of view.

 

The legal definition, however...that's different. Truth be told, "reverse discrimination" may be a legitimate legal term. I honestly don't know, and don't feel like looking it up.

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually, I was arguing that your "dictionary" definition was incorrect. You were using a sociological definition. Though the correct dictionary definition of "discrimination" illustrates the silliness of the term "reverse discrimination": when you discern a difference between two things, you are making a discrimination. There's no "reverse" to it.

 

That also holds sociologically. Discrimination is discrimination. Period. It is entirely possible for a minority to discriminate against a majority (for example: I, as a genius, are in a distinct minority, and are discriminatory about it by holding you unwashed masses in contempt for it. Apartheid was a better example, though.) And there's nothing "reverse" about it; it's still discrimination, in both the semantic and sociological points of view.

 

The legal definition, however...that's different. Truth be told, "reverse discrimination" may be a legitimate legal term. I honestly don't know, and don't feel like looking it up.

I was using a quoted verbatim dictionary definition of "reverse discrimination" not "discrimination", from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. It's a specific kind of discrimination. Like I said before, a subset of the overall definition of discrimination.

 

That same dictionary definition of "discrimination" in the sense we're talking about is, as expected, much broader: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

[Chef Jim]

I was using a quoted verbatim dictionary definition of "reverse discrimination" not "discrimination", from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. It's a specific kind of discrimination. Like I said before, a subset of the overall definition of discrimination.

 

That same dictionary definition of "discrimination" in the sense we're talking about is, as expected, much broader: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

 

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Do you think there is any difference at all between discriminating against white males who are not allowed to get jobs because racial quotas have to be filled for minorities, versus discriminating against people who wear white after labor day? Or are they exactly the same because they are both discrimination?

[Chef Jim]

Do you think there is any difference at all between discriminating against white males who are not allowed to get jobs because racial quotas have to be filled for minorities, versus discriminating against people who wear white after labor day? Or are they exactly the same because they are both discrimination?

 

How do you discriminate against people wearing white after labor day?

[Booster4324]

How do you discriminate against people wearing white after labor day?

 

 

They went around and badmouthed the "fashion clueless" (add "slut" if it was a sexy outfit).

 

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-are-you-not-su...r-labor-day.htm

 

I live in Manhattan and every year I see more and more people wearing white after labor day. I was brought up to NEVER even think about it. I think it's sad how this rule is slowly dying. At this years Emmy awards, Katherine Heigl was named as one of the best dressed at the show, dressed in an ALL white gown...I almost died.

 

I personally, have heard much worse in the south. This was years ago though and it seems to have died out.

[Chef Jim]

They went around and badmouthed the "fashion clueless" (add "slut" if it was a sexy outfit).

 

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-are-you-not-su...r-labor-day.htm

 

 

 

I personally, have heard much worse in the south. This was years ago though and it seems to have died out.

 

Badmouthed is not discriminated against. Boy the word discrimination has be bent and twisted over the years.

[Kelly the Dog]

How do you discriminate against people wearing white after labor day?

 

Not invite them to your party? Not let them come to work in certain clothes? Publicly ridicule them with offensive language on the street? Not consider them your equal because of the way they dress? Choose someone to hire that dresses in darker more traditional fall clothes even though they have the same qualifications?

 

The point is obvious. There are different kinds of discrimination and there are different levels of discrimination. Some equate and some don't. People like yourself that argue there is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination are entirely correct insofar as reverse discrimination is just discrimination against a race, and it's the same thing either way you look at it. That's true if you choose to look at it that way.

 

But there are different kinds of discrimination, be it racial or age or gender or others, and some are equal and some are not, and some it is arguable as to whether they are equal. People that argue there is a concept of "reverse discrimination" make specific distinctions, like it's a minority discriminating against a majority. That makes it different if you are breaking it down, which was my original point, and dictionaries make that distinction. It doesn't say that one is better or worse, lesser or greater. It's just a different kind of discrimination.

 

Like apples and oranges are fruits. You're saying they're equal and both fruits. Other people make break it down and say sure, they're both fruits because they grow on trees and have seeds but there are small differences that distinguish them.

 

There are some people who believe that "reverse discrimination" in racial cases is not as bad as racial discrimination, because the minority has been discriminated against for so long, so bad, that it's okay that the majority now gets some of their own medicine. There isn't a right or wrong about that, it's an opinion. You would surely believe that's completely stupid and totally wrong and hypocritical because people who are arguing for equality are also arguing for inequality. And that's a very legitimate argument.

[finknottle]

Do you think there is any difference at all between discriminating against white males who are not allowed to get jobs because racial quotas have to be filled for minorities, versus discriminating against people who wear white after labor day? Or are they exactly the same because they are both discrimination?

 

They are conceptually exactly the same. The difference is that the discrimination against those who wear white after labor day - like that against those sporting bad toupee's - is not seen as a pervasive enough problem to galvanize the population. When prejudice against a class become systematic *and* the media plays it up, that's when the public recognizes it.

 

On a more serious note, what is the difference between racial discrimination and height discrimination? Among males, there is a strong correlation between height and promotion and earnings, particularly in government and large corporations. One need look no further than the 25 presidential races of the last century, 1904-2000, in which the taller candidate pervailed at a rate of almost 4 to 1 (18-5-2). If you score the popular vote instead, it is almost 5:1 at 19-4-2! The taller candidate wins five times as often. There is little doubt that height discrimination for males is fairly broad and broadly accepted, in the workplace, in politics amd the public spotlight, and even in dating.

 

So why isn't this phenomena investigated? Why does the federal government happily dissect race and sex in its work force and the impact on promotions, but can't be bothered to investigate grades-by-height? Simple - the public doesn't recognize it as a problem. One might argue that that dismissiveness, or 'blind spot', is itself the strongest argument that prejudice is at work. But, like wearing white after labor day, the public will not recognize it as discrimination untill the media tells them to.

[Kelly the Dog]

They are conceptually exactly the same. The difference is that the discrimination against those who wear white after labor day - like that against those sporting bad toupee's - is not seen as a pervasive enough problem to galvanize the population. When prejudice against a class become systematic *and* the media plays it up, that's when the public recognizes it.

 

On a more serious note, what is the difference between racial discrimination and height discrimination? Among males, there is a strong correlation between height and promotion and earnings, particularly in government and large corporations. One need look no further than the 25 presidential races of the last century, 1904-2000, in which the taller candidate pervailed at a rate of almost 4 to 1 (18-5-2). If you score the popular vote instead, it is almost 5:1 at 19-4-2! The taller candidate wins five times as often. There is little doubt that height discrimination for males is fairly broad and broadly accepted, in the workplace, in politics amd the public spotlight, and even in dating.

 

So why isn't this phenomena investigated? Why does the federal government happily dissect race and sex in its work force and the impact on promotions, but can't be bothered to investigate grades-by-height? Simple - the public doesn't recognize it as a problem. One might argue that that dismissiveness, or 'blind spot', is itself the strongest argument that prejudice is at work. But, like wearing white after labor day, the public will not recognize it as discrimination untill the media tells them to.

I agree with all of that. My point about people that think there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" are only looking at it in your first sentence, conceptually. But of course there are differences.