Lootifer wrote:No it doesn't.
It can do, but as I say a few posts earlier than the one I linked, you need more information to come to that conclusion.
This simple example shows what I mean...
There's a common saying in New Zealand sporting circles: "I support two teams: New Zealand, and anyone playing against Australia". The first half in itself does not imply ANY discrimination against Australia, thus by itself is non-discriminatory, however the second part is clarification that disrimination was implied. If you removed the section after the comma then there is no dicrimination.
If you are to say supporting something based on any arbartairy reason is discriminatory is basically saying the entire world is rife with discrimination.
I am not saying supporting someone based on skin colour is rational, it's dumb as f*ck, I am just saying it's not (neccessarily - it could well be, but further clarification is required) racist.
edit: sexism is not a good example because 99.99% of the cases where something similar to this threads' question occurs is not "A Man would be good at xxxx" but "A man woulod be better than a woman at xxxx" which includes the negative, and thus is discriminatory.
note: I mean unfairly discrimination when I use the term in this post; there are types of rational/fair discrimination in society for purely pragmatic reasons (e.g. Men and Woman dont compete in the same competition in the olympics, boxers have weight categories, etc etc).
the first half of that phrase is discrimination against all teams not from new zealand.
and the entire world IS rife with discrimination... lol
i understand your way of thinking but i don't really agree with it. according to your model, white supremacists and the black panthers are not racist groups.