[Re: Discrimination (& meta-PC)]

[Randal Pittelli <pittelli@ehsct7.envmed.rochester.edu>]

Benjamin R. Bates wrote:
> 
> Instead of going through the silly line-by line "analysis" of all these
> posts, it might be better if people started explaining their views on
> exactly what discrimiantion is in the case of whether or not we, the CEDA-L
> community, are discriminating against Mr. TD Barnes, as alleged by Mr.
> O'Toole (commonly known as Frigg).
> 
> Instead of relying on dictionary definition and that so-called "experts" who
> wrote them, let's look at what discrimination really means to real people.
> In my mind, discrimination agaisnt persons means that they are irrationally
> prejudged as agroup on the basis of some characteristic.  

Problem is, in debate it's nearly impossible to show what 'real' people
think a word means, making it especially difficult to justify using such
a supposed definition without initially explaining that 'common'
definition. Discrimination only in recent years is a 'bad' word. Through
PC politics and the ignorance of many of its followers (the sheep), the
masses have used the phrase, "that's discrimination!" so  many times to
mean "that's sexual/age/race discrimination (and therefore BAD)", that
they have believed that's what the word means. Referring back to the
he/she/them/s/hit thread, yes, language does change through such forces,
but without a general consensus on a term, it's really the obligation of
the user to explain a connotatively-incorrect or at least controversial
defn.

Could have said, "sexualism" to be more clear, or, without having to
make up a new PC word, several terms strung together, like "irrational
discrimination/prejudice against a group..." would convey/imply the
speaker's meaning (and values!) better. This issue of course is about
clarity.

The other problem with using 'discrimination' to mean what you have said
is that if you buy the argument that using 'he' gender=neutrally should
be avoided b.c. it entrenches a 'bad' mindset, then likewise using the
term 'discrimination' negatively to mean only a subset of its
traditional defn also should be avoided else the masses will erroneously
believe through PC forces/sheep that *all* discrimination is bad. Call
such an avoidance *meta*-PC, if you will {:->.

-Randy



-- 
<----------------------------------------->
| Randal Pittelli                         |
| Dept of Environmental Medicine          |
| Univ of Rochester Medical Center        |
| Rochester, NY 14642                     |
|                                         |
| TEL: (716) 275-0797                     |
| FAX: (716) 256-2591                     |
| pittelli@envmed.rochester.edu           |
| http://www.envmed.rochester.edu/wwwrlp/ |
| --------------------------------------- |
|  "Love only a god that dances" - F.N.   |
<----------------------------------------->

---

• Prev by Date: discrimination
• Next by Date: TD's 1AR, Part II
• Prev by thread: discrimination
• Next by thread: TD's 1AR, Part II
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page