Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
It is stereotyping. Stereotyping is a form of discrimination. It doesn't matter if you are right statistically.
|
The problem here is that the word "discrimination" has two meanings.
One meaning is to note a difference and act on it. When I choose a part for my project, that is discrimination. It used to be a
good thing to have, e.g., discriminating taste, but that was before the language became overwhelmed by people incapable of controlling their emotions.
By this definition/usage, when you decide that you would rather eat at Outback than McDonalds, you are discriminating. When you see an eatery you have no prior knowledge of, with a drive-up lane, lots of glass and employees in polyester outfits, and decide not to eat there because you want a good steak, you first have stereotyped
and then discriminated. And it's all good. It's a valuable survival skill.
The other meaning - the one you
appear to have used - is the emotionally-charged accusatory one, used when attacking someone rather than discussing their motives, or to shout them down. There are many terms that have become the verbal equivalent of thuggery, of shutting down conversation by an accusation that is culturally nearly impossible to defend against. If I call you racist, sexist, homophobic or, yes, discriminatory, there
is no effective defense because another oddity of the culture is that all attacks are in the eye of the victim.
The original message on this was very indelicate, but made a valuable point... that she very likely does not fully understand the current internet economy, for example. The debate over the political correctness overshadowed the actual intent of the writer. Are you so afraid of his point that you have to attack how he delivered it?
