Reverse Discrimination: Are You Guilty of This?

[Funkyterrance]

Reverse Discrimination: Discrimination against members of a majority group or in favor of members of a minority group.

Does it even actually exist?
If so,is it really an issue?
Do you ever subscribe to this mindset?
On these forums?

I thought this subject might be timely for obvious reasons.
I myself do inadvertently subscribe to reverse discrimination at times but mostly in reference to someone being ganged up on. A person may very well be in the wrong but if they are being ganged up on significantly I subconsciously begin to discriminate against those doing the "ganging". I start to view them as ugly.

[Army of GOD]

[Funkyterrance]

The first step to recovery is admitting, AoG.

[Symmetry]

[Funkyterrance]

This topic is intended to be interpreted in a very broad sense, not in the frame of "Sally gets a job instead of Samuel because she's a girl and they need to fill a quota" sort of limitation.
Just thought I would make that clear?

[Symmetry]

This topic is intended to be interpreted in a very broad sense, not in the frame of "Sally gets a job instead of Samuel because she's a girl and they need to fill a quota" sort of limitation.
Just thought I would make that clear?

Perhaps if your explanation didn't involve a broad getting a job over a dude it wouldn't be considered in a broad sense.

[Funkyterrance]

This topic is intended to be interpreted in a very broad sense, not in the frame of "Sally gets a job instead of Samuel because she's a girl and they need to fill a quota" sort of limitation.
Just thought I would make that clear?

Perhaps if your explanation didn't involve a broad getting a job over a dude it wouldn't be considered in a broad sense.

[Symmetry]

This topic is intended to be interpreted in a very broad sense, not in the frame of "Sally gets a job instead of Samuel because she's a girl and they need to fill a quota" sort of limitation.
Just thought I would make that clear?

Perhaps if your explanation didn't involve a broad getting a job over a dude it wouldn't be considered in a broad sense.

Ah I'm just kidding here, we're buds right?

[Maugena]

This topic is intended to be interpreted in a very broad sense, not in the frame of "Sally gets a job instead of Samuel because she's a girl and they need to fill a quota" sort of limitation.
Just thought I would make that clear?

Perhaps if your explanation didn't involve a broad getting a job over a dude it wouldn't be considered in a broad sense.

The Best of Symmetry 2012

[Haggis_McMutton]

This topic is intended to be interpreted in a very broad sense, not in the frame of "Sally gets a job instead of Samuel because she's a girl and they need to fill a quota" sort of limitation.
Just thought I would make that clear?

Perhaps if your explanation didn't involve a broad getting a job over a dude it wouldn't be considered in a broad sense.

The Best of Symmetry 2012

SOTY 2012 ?

[Maugena]

This topic is intended to be interpreted in a very broad sense, not in the frame of "Sally gets a job instead of Samuel because she's a girl and they need to fill a quota" sort of limitation.
Just thought I would make that clear?

Perhaps if your explanation didn't involve a broad getting a job over a dude it wouldn't be considered in a broad sense.

The Best of Symmetry 2012

SOTY 2012 ?

Eh... not quite.
Maybe an honorable mention.

[Funkyterrance]

I suppose this thread is fatally flawed in that if anyone were guilty of it they wouldn't admit it or perhaps even know they were doing it?

I can say I have voted for underdogs from time to time for these sorts of reason. I attribute this to more boredom than anything else, however.

[kentington]

Should we start a new club? Reversing Reverse Discrimination.
Reverse Discrimination only makes the weak weaker. Let's stick to healthy discrimination, at least we know we are doing it.

[thegreekdog]

I suppose this thread is fatally flawed in that if anyone were guilty of it they wouldn't admit it or perhaps even know they were doing it?

I can say I have voted for underdogs from time to time for these sorts of reason. I attribute this to more boredom than anything else, however.

I'm not sure I entirely understand your question. Have I ever advocated for a person in a minority because I'm discriminating against the majority? Is that your question?

[BigBallinStalin]

Suppose there are two applicants for a job, Mr. Blue and Mr. Orange. They both have the same 'productivity rating', but Mr. Blue belongs to the group, Blue People, and Mr. Orange belongs to the group... Orange People (surprised, huh?).

Now, the employer can only hire one person.

The law says that he must hire Mr. Blue because blue people are favored by the law. So, he hires Mr. Blue.

(1) Is this discrimination?
(2) Has Mr. Orange been discriminated against?



Suppose--in another scenario--that there is no law dictating which group should be favored over the other. So, for various reasons--unbeknownst to us--the employer hires Mr. Orange.

(3) Is this discrimination?
(4) Has Mr. Blue been discriminated against?

[kentington]

Suppose there are two applicants for a job, Mr. Blue and Mr. Orange. They both have the same 'productivity rating', but Mr. Blue belongs to the group, Blue People, and Mr. Orange belongs to the group... Orange People (surprised, huh?).

Now, the employer can only hire one person.

The law says that he must hire Mr. Blue because blue people are favored by the law. So, he hires Mr. Blue.

(1) Is this discrimination?
(2) Has Mr. Orange been discriminated against?

1) Yes?
2) Not by the employer, but by the law?

[BigBallinStalin]

Suppose there are two applicants for a job, Mr. Blue and Mr. Orange. They both have the same 'productivity rating', but Mr. Blue belongs to the group, Blue People, and Mr. Orange belongs to the group... Orange People (surprised, huh?).

Now, the employer can only hire one person.

The law says that he must hire Mr. Blue because blue people are favored by the law. So, he hires Mr. Blue.

(1) Is this discrimination?
(2) Has Mr. Orange been discriminated against?

1) Yes?
2) Not by the employer, but by the law?

I'd agree with you, but to nitpick (2) would be "Yes, the law discriminated against him, and the employer did as well--however he was forced to discriminate."



What about this:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180698#p3947575

Suppose--in another scenario--that there is no law dictating which group should be favored over the other. So, for various reasons--unbeknownst to us--the employer hires Mr. Orange.

(3) Is this discrimination?
(4) Has Mr. Blue been discriminated against?

[kentington]

Suppose there are two applicants for a job, Mr. Blue and Mr. Orange. They both have the same 'productivity rating', but Mr. Blue belongs to the group, Blue People, and Mr. Orange belongs to the group... Orange People (surprised, huh?).

Now, the employer can only hire one person.

The law says that he must hire Mr. Blue because blue people are favored by the law. So, he hires Mr. Blue.

(1) Is this discrimination?
(2) Has Mr. Orange been discriminated against?

1) Yes?
2) Not by the employer, but by the law?

I'd agree with you, but to nitpick (2) would be "Yes, the law discriminated against him, and the employer did as well--however he was forced to discriminate."



What about this:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180698#p3947575

Suppose--in another scenario--that there is no law dictating which group should be favored over the other. So, for various reasons--unbeknownst to us--the employer hires Mr. Orange.

(3) Is this discrimination?
(4) Has Mr. Blue been discriminated against?

That is why I put the question mark. I didn't know if you were saying the employer was being discriminatory or the law. I agree they both are even if forced.

3) Depends on the various reasons. If solely based on the color group then yes that is discrimination. If for chemistry reasons or some small thing that has nothing to do with color then no.
4)See above.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, you agree that the 'anti-discrimination' laws of the US are discriminatory?

[kentington]

So, you agree that the 'anti-discrimination' laws of the US are discriminatory?

Yes.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, you agree that the 'anti-discrimination' laws of the US are discriminatory?

Yes.

I think FunkyT is labeling you and I as 'guilty of believing in' reverse discrimination...

which doesn't make sense--based on my above posts.

It doesn't matter how many people are in group blue or group orange. Discrimination against a group is discrimination--within the context of my two scenarios.
(so maybe FunkyT can clarify his OP for us).


<twiddles thumbs>

[kentington]

So, you agree that the 'anti-discrimination' laws of the US are discriminatory?

Yes.

I think FunkyT is labeling you and I as 'guilty of believing in' reverse discrimination...

which doesn't make sense--based on my above posts.

It doesn't matter how many people are in group blue or group orange. Discrimination against a group is discrimination--within the context of my two scenarios.
(so maybe FunkyT can clarify his OP for us).


<twiddles thumbs>

This is why I said just stick to regular discrimination. Nothing to clarify.
I think everyone is waiting to get a more specific idea from him.

[Symmetry]

He did basically say that thread was flawed last page peeps. Give him a break.

[BigBallinStalin]

The concept of reverse discrimination seems to muddy the waters unnecessarily. One could vilify the dissenters of 'anti-discrimination' laws by charging them as guilty of "reverse discrimination" in order to win a false, moral high ground above them.

[BigBallinStalin]

He did basically say that thread was flawed last page peeps. Give him a break.

I suppose this thread is fatally flawed in that if anyone were guilty of it they wouldn't admit it or perhaps even know they were doing it?

FunkyT has labeled the thread flawed for reasons which don't clarify TGD's questions or my concerns.