What exactly is discrimination?

It just hit me out of nowhere: I don't actually know what discrimination *is*.😲

I can recognize specific instances when they happen right in front of me, but I struggle to articulate a coherent, "general" definition
that functions as an elastic, adaptable concept
across various levels of society.

Is it possible to define the very essence of discrimination? Can we find an interpretation that remains timeless—something that would have held true two thousand years ago, holds true today, and will remain valid two thousand years from now?

There is also another layer to this:

Who possesses the ultimate authority to define what constitutes discrimination?
By what standard, or by whose judgment, do we distinguish between what is truly discriminatory and what is not?🤷

I am not particularly interested in the current legalistic frameworks or how the penal code handles these cases
given that our laws are constantly shifting.

What I am searching for is a "philosophical"🙄—and hopefully, an absolute—definition of discrimination.

Furthermore, I am curious about examples of false or perceived discrimination.
After all, it isn't always the case that simply not receiving something we want constitutes discrimination.

(Admittedly, this introduction isn't perfectly polished,😬 but please look past my phrasing and focus on the core intent of what I am trying to express.

Reflect on the underlying spirit of discrimination and tell me: what is it, really?

Seems like that happens way more often lately

It’s everywhere you look, I guess😢

rapidmaker77 said:It just hit me out of nowhere: I don't actually know what discrimination *is*.😲

I can recognize specific instances when they happen right in front of me, but I struggle to articulate a coherent, "general" definition
that functions as an elastic, adaptable concept
across various levels of society.

Is it possible to define the very essence of discrimination? Can we find an interpretation that remains timeless—something that would have held true two thousand years ago, holds true today, and will remain valid two thousand years from now?

There is also another layer to this:

Who possesses the ultimate authority to define what constitutes discrimination?
By what standard, or by whose judgment, do we distinguish between what is truly discriminatory and what is not?🤷

I am not particularly interested in the current legalistic frameworks or how the penal code handles these cases
given that our laws are constantly shifting.

What I am searching for is a "philosophical"🙄—and hopefully, an absolute—definition of discrimination.

Furthermore, I am curious about examples of false or perceived discrimination.
After all, it isn't always the case that simply not receiving something we want constitutes discrimination.

(Admittedly, this introduction isn't perfectly polished,😬 but please look past my phrasing and focus on the core intent of what I am trying to express.

Reflect on the underlying spirit of discrimination and tell me: what is it, really?

😍 Realizing you don't know something is the first step toward actually learning it. (Hopefully 😢)

Honestly, about 95% of people throwing the word "discrimination" around have no idea how to define it. To them, it’s just a buzzword. They use it because it makes them sound urban, modern, and smart... basically, it's just an ego trip. 😬

lonegardener said:😍 Realizing you don't know something is the first step toward actually learning it. (Hopefully 😢)

Honestly, about 95% of people throwing the word "discrimination" around have no idea how to define it. To them, it’s just a buzzword. They use it because it makes them sound urban, modern, and smart... basically, it's just an ego trip. 😬

I have concluded that I am certain, absolutely, undeniably, of exactly one and a half facts.

1. I am conscious
(and there is no room for doubt, because doubt itself is impossible here😲
Specifically, if I were to doubt my own consciousness, that very act of doubting serves as confirmation
of my awareness. Ergo, I am conscious, and I cannot deny this fact or opt out of being aware. 😲

1b
Beyond the fact of my own consciousness, I know nothing else for certain.

Now, I hear you asking me—why bother even looking into what discrimination is if you aren't going to be certain about it either?

My response is this:
-it's so that within this vast ocean of ignorance in which I exist, I might establish some boundaries. It allows me to move more "securely" and feel out what the other characters (the contents of my consciousness) have to say about the matter.

Besides, perhaps there are actual characters in this endless drama of a forum who TRULY understand what discrimination is. People who actually know who they are, who you are, who we all are, why anything exists at all instead of nothing, what our purpose is, and where that cosmic diner at the edge of the universe is located.🙂

Quincey:

By the way, 95% of people tossing around the term 'discrimination' can't even define it. They just use it as a buzzword. A way to sound urban, modern, and intelligent... an ego trip, essentially.😬

But if I judge by myself and the world around me, it isn't 95%; it's everyone. All 100% of us actually know absolutely nothing.

I suspect the other characters (my internal mental contents), much like myself, only know that they are conscious. Everything else is just a blind leading the blind, searching for Schrödinger's black cat in a pitch-black room—or rather, a pitch-black universe.

(In this thread, that cat is discrimination; it might be in the room called the universe, or it might not; it might be alive, or it might not😍 ).

It is all quite dark, and on the horizon of this room-universe, there are neither doors nor windows.
Given all this, the experts🙄 claim everything is spinning incredibly fast, and nobody knows which direction we are heading.

Help!!

I want to get off, but I don't even know where I am or who I am.🤷

rapidmaker77 said:I have concluded that I am certain, absolutely, undeniably, of exactly one and a half facts.

1. I am conscious
(and there is no room for doubt, because doubt itself is impossible here😲
Specifically, if I were to doubt my own consciousness, that very act of doubting serves as confirmation
of my awareness. Ergo, I am conscious, and I cannot deny this fact or opt out of being aware. 😲

1b
Beyond the fact of my own consciousness, I know nothing else for certain.

Now, I hear you asking me—why bother even looking into what discrimination is if you aren't going to be certain about it either?

My response is this:
-it's so that within this vast ocean of ignorance in which I exist, I might establish some boundaries. It allows me to move more "securely" and feel out what the other characters (the contents of my consciousness) have to say about the matter.

Besides, perhaps there are actual characters in this endless drama of a forum who TRULY understand what discrimination is. People who actually know who they are, who you are, who we all are, why anything exists at all instead of nothing, what our purpose is, and where that cosmic diner at the edge of the universe is located.🙂

Quincey:

By the way, 95% of people tossing around the term 'discrimination' can't even define it. They just use it as a buzzword. A way to sound urban, modern, and intelligent... an ego trip, essentially.😬

But if I judge by myself and the world around me, it isn't 95%; it's everyone. All 100% of us actually know absolutely nothing.

I suspect the other characters (my internal mental contents), much like myself, only know that they are conscious. Everything else is just a blind leading the blind, searching for Schrödinger's black cat in a pitch-black room—or rather, a pitch-black universe.

(In this thread, that cat is discrimination; it might be in the room called the universe, or it might not; it might be alive, or it might not😍 ).

It is all quite dark, and on the horizon of this room-universe, there are neither doors nor windows.
Given all this, the experts🙄 claim everything is spinning incredibly fast, and nobody knows which direction we are heading.

Help!!

I want to get off, but I don't even know where I am or who I am.🤷

I think there’s plenty of room for doubt there. When you say, "I am conscious," you’re already operating under the assumption that there’s a fixed "identity" to be aware of. But what if that identity isn't actually what we think it is? It might be something else entirely. If that's the case, we have to ask ourselves: what does it truly mean to say, "I am conscious"? 😬

And another thing—just so we're on the same page—you actually have to exist first. I mean, how could you possibly be self-aware if you don't even exist? 😬

Enivej, we’re talking about discrimination here, not metaphysics. 😬

rapidmaker77 said:I have concluded that I am certain, absolutely, undeniably, of exactly one and a half facts.

1. I am conscious
(and there is no room for doubt, because doubt itself is impossible here😲
Specifically, if I were to doubt my own consciousness, that very act of doubting serves as confirmation
of my awareness. Ergo, I am conscious, and I cannot deny this fact or opt out of being aware. 😲

1b
Beyond the fact of my own consciousness, I know nothing else for certain.

Now, I hear you asking me—why bother even looking into what discrimination is if you aren't going to be certain about it either?

My response is this:
-it's so that within this vast ocean of ignorance in which I exist, I might establish some boundaries. It allows me to move more "securely" and feel out what the other characters (the contents of my consciousness) have to say about the matter.

Besides, perhaps there are actual characters in this endless drama of a forum who TRULY understand what discrimination is. People who actually know who they are, who you are, who we all are, why anything exists at all instead of nothing, what our purpose is, and where that cosmic diner at the edge of the universe is located.🙂

Quincey:

By the way, 95% of people tossing around the term 'discrimination' can't even define it. They just use it as a buzzword. A way to sound urban, modern, and intelligent... an ego trip, essentially.😬

But if I judge by myself and the world around me, it isn't 95%; it's everyone. All 100% of us actually know absolutely nothing.

I suspect the other characters (my internal mental contents), much like myself, only know that they are conscious. Everything else is just a blind leading the blind, searching for Schrödinger's black cat in a pitch-black room—or rather, a pitch-black universe.

(In this thread, that cat is discrimination; it might be in the room called the universe, or it might not; it might be alive, or it might not😍 ).

It is all quite dark, and on the horizon of this room-universe, there are neither doors nor windows.
Given all this, the experts🙄 claim everything is spinning incredibly fast, and nobody knows which direction we are heading.

Help!!

I want to get off, but I don't even know where I am or who I am.🤷

Most people don't have a clue what discrimination actually means. Just look at that thread about same-sex marriage—the crowd of self-proclaimed experts there is absolutely convinced they’re being "discriminated against," yet none of them can even begin to explain why.

I once got into a heated debate with someone who actually argued that it’s "discrimination" to deny chickens the right to life. He even went so far as to compare the treatment of poultry to the historical struggles of women and Black Americans—and apparently, he thinks the same applies to the LGBTQ+ community today. His logic? If we stop "discriminating" against gay people, one day we'll eventually end up doing the same to chickens. ☕

rapidmaker77 said:I have concluded that I am certain, absolutely, undeniably, of exactly one and a half facts.

1. I am conscious
(and there is no room for doubt, because doubt itself is impossible here😲
Specifically, if I were to doubt my own consciousness, that very act of doubting serves as confirmation
of my awareness. Ergo, I am conscious, and I cannot deny this fact or opt out of being aware. 😲

1b
Beyond the fact of my own consciousness, I know nothing else for certain.

Now, I hear you asking me—why bother even looking into what discrimination is if you aren't going to be certain about it either?

My response is this:
-it's so that within this vast ocean of ignorance in which I exist, I might establish some boundaries. It allows me to move more "securely" and feel out what the other characters (the contents of my consciousness) have to say about the matter.

Besides, perhaps there are actual characters in this endless drama of a forum who TRULY understand what discrimination is. People who actually know who they are, who you are, who we all are, why anything exists at all instead of nothing, what our purpose is, and where that cosmic diner at the edge of the universe is located.🙂

Quincey:

By the way, 95% of people tossing around the term 'discrimination' can't even define it. They just use it as a buzzword. A way to sound urban, modern, and intelligent... an ego trip, essentially.😬

But if I judge by myself and the world around me, it isn't 95%; it's everyone. All 100% of us actually know absolutely nothing.

I suspect the other characters (my internal mental contents), much like myself, only know that they are conscious. Everything else is just a blind leading the blind, searching for Schrödinger's black cat in a pitch-black room—or rather, a pitch-black universe.

(In this thread, that cat is discrimination; it might be in the room called the universe, or it might not; it might be alive, or it might not😍 ).

It is all quite dark, and on the horizon of this room-universe, there are neither doors nor windows.
Given all this, the experts🙄 claim everything is spinning incredibly fast, and nobody knows which direction we are heading.

Help!!

I want to get off, but I don't even know where I am or who I am.🤷

Welcome to the desert of uncertainty. Pragmatic folks don't usually struggle with this; they’re only interested in what "works." Of course, they can never actually define what "working" means, yet they find any debate about functionality to be tedious and dysfunctional. 😵 🤣

rapidmaker77 said:I have concluded that I am certain, absolutely, undeniably, of exactly one and a half facts.

1. I am conscious
(and there is no room for doubt, because doubt itself is impossible here😲
Specifically, if I were to doubt my own consciousness, that very act of doubting serves as confirmation
of my awareness. Ergo, I am conscious, and I cannot deny this fact or opt out of being aware. 😲

1b
Beyond the fact of my own consciousness, I know nothing else for certain.

Now, I hear you asking me—why bother even looking into what discrimination is if you aren't going to be certain about it either?

My response is this:
-it's so that within this vast ocean of ignorance in which I exist, I might establish some boundaries. It allows me to move more "securely" and feel out what the other characters (the contents of my consciousness) have to say about the matter.

Besides, perhaps there are actual characters in this endless drama of a forum who TRULY understand what discrimination is. People who actually know who they are, who you are, who we all are, why anything exists at all instead of nothing, what our purpose is, and where that cosmic diner at the edge of the universe is located.🙂

Quincey:

By the way, 95% of people tossing around the term 'discrimination' can't even define it. They just use it as a buzzword. A way to sound urban, modern, and intelligent... an ego trip, essentially.😬

But if I judge by myself and the world around me, it isn't 95%; it's everyone. All 100% of us actually know absolutely nothing.

I suspect the other characters (my internal mental contents), much like myself, only know that they are conscious. Everything else is just a blind leading the blind, searching for Schrödinger's black cat in a pitch-black room—or rather, a pitch-black universe.

(In this thread, that cat is discrimination; it might be in the room called the universe, or it might not; it might be alive, or it might not😍 ).

It is all quite dark, and on the horizon of this room-universe, there are neither doors nor windows.
Given all this, the experts🙄 claim everything is spinning incredibly fast, and nobody knows which direction we are heading.

Help!!

I want to get off, but I don't even know where I am or who I am.🤷

I can't help you there. Honestly, I just doubt anyone else can, either. 😬

Discrimination is really just a generalization that society, politics, or some individual decides isn't acceptable anymore.

I suspect you might be referring to a specific term or perhaps a typo, but if we are discussing the concept of a priest, one cannot help but view the institution through a lens of weary skepticism. History is littered with the wreckage of clerical authority, often proving that those tasked with guarding the moral compass are frequently the ones most prone to losing their way. It is an old story, much like the inevitable decline of any centralized power structure. kaže:
It suddenly dawned on me, with a rather unsettling clarity, that I don't actually have a concrete grasp on what discrimination truly entails.😲

In that case, you become immune to discrimination, simply because you lack any sense of what constitutes an injustice.

Who exactly holds the "authority" to dictate what constitutes discrimination?

The wise, the virtuous, and the discerning—only their standards truly matter. We have no business wasting our time entertaining the definitions provided by the foolish or the malicious.

I have little interest in the current "legalistic" framework regarding how these justifications are structured or applied.
The shifting landscape of criminal law regarding "discrimination" is a moving target. It seems the definitions are in a state of perpetual flux, evolving almost as quickly as the social climate itself.

I find myself wondering about the "philosophical" side of things. 🙄 Hopefully, we’re looking at what constitutes an "absolute" definition of discrimination here.

Do you truly believe that a legal definition is merely a mirror reflecting its philosophical counterpart? I suspect it is far more pragmatic than that. In my view, a law doesn't exist to capture an abstract truth; rather, it is the byproduct of compromise, political maneuvering, and the messy necessity of social order. It isn't born from pure logic, but from the friction between competing interests trying to carve out their own space within the system.

I am unfamiliar with this term or its context. Please provide more information so I can assist you properly. kaže:
I have come to the conclusion that I know exactly one and a half facts with absolute, unwavering certainty.

So you claim I only possess one and a half facts? That’s a rather amusing observation.

bluemason3 said:Discrimination is really just a generalization that society, politics, or some individual decides isn't acceptable anymore.

Can a society, or even an entire regime, engage in systemic discrimination? It is a question that touches upon the very core of how power functions within any organized civilization. When we examine history, we see that prejudice is rarely just a collection of individual prejudices; rather, it often becomes baked into the institutional architecture itself. Think of it like a structural flaw in a skyscraper. You might have individual workers who are perfectly well-intentioned, yet if the blueprints themselves are skewed, the entire building will lean. In a similar vein, when a government or a social system establishes laws, economic policies, or educational standards that inherently favor one group while placing invisible hurdles in front of another, discrimination ceases to be about personal malice. It becomes a matter of administrative efficiency. A regime doesn't necessarily need to pass a law explicitly stating one group is inferior to practice discrimination. It can achieve the same result through zoning laws, credit scoring models, or even the subtle ways public resources are distributed. It is much cleaner, and far more difficult to challenge, when inequality is presented as a byproduct of "standard procedure" rather than overt hostility. In many ways, the most effective forms of discrimination are those that operate quietly in the background, masquerading as neutral bureaucracy.

Jacob Mitchell3 said:

I suspect you might be referring to a specific term or perhaps a typo, but if we are discussing the concept of a priest, one cannot help but view the institution through a lens of weary skepticism. History is littered with the wreckage of clerical authority, often proving that those tasked with guarding the moral compass are frequently the ones most prone to losing their way. It is an old story, much like the inevitable decline of any centralized power structure. kaže:
It suddenly dawned on me, with a rather unsettling clarity, that I don't actually have a concrete grasp on what discrimination truly entails.😲

In that case, you become immune to discrimination, simply because you lack any sense of what constitutes an injustice.

Who exactly holds the "authority" to dictate what constitutes discrimination?

The wise, the virtuous, and the discerning—only their standards truly matter. We have no business wasting our time entertaining the definitions provided by the foolish or the malicious.

I have little interest in the current "legalistic" framework regarding how these justifications are structured or applied.
The shifting landscape of criminal law regarding "discrimination" is a moving target. It seems the definitions are in a state of perpetual flux, evolving almost as quickly as the social climate itself.

I find myself wondering about the "philosophical" side of things. 🙄 Hopefully, we’re looking at what constitutes an "absolute" definition of discrimination here.

Do you truly believe that a legal definition is merely a mirror reflecting its philosophical counterpart? I suspect it is far more pragmatic than that. In my view, a law doesn't exist to capture an abstract truth; rather, it is the byproduct of compromise, political maneuvering, and the messy necessity of social order. It isn't born from pure logic, but from the friction between competing interests trying to carve out their own space within the system.

I am unfamiliar with this term or its context. Please provide more information so I can assist you properly. kaže:
I have come to the conclusion that I know exactly one and a half facts with absolute, unwavering certainty.

So you claim I only possess one and a half facts? That’s a rather amusing observation.

Can a society, or even an entire regime, engage in systemic discrimination? It is a question that touches upon the very core of how power functions within any organized civilization. When we examine history, we see that prejudice is rarely just a collection of individual prejudices; rather, it often becomes baked into the institutional architecture itself. Think of it like a structural flaw in a skyscraper. You might have individual workers who are perfectly well-intentioned, yet if the blueprints themselves are skewed, the entire building will lean. In a similar vein, when a government or a social system establishes laws, economic policies, or educational standards that inherently favor one group while placing invisible hurdles in front of another, discrimination ceases to be about personal malice. It becomes a matter of administrative efficiency. A regime doesn't necessarily need to pass a law explicitly stating one group is inferior to practice discrimination. It can achieve the same result through zoning laws, credit scoring models, or even the subtle ways public resources are distributed. It is much cleaner, and far more difficult to challenge, when inequality is presented as a byproduct of "standard procedure" rather than overt hostility. In many ways, the most effective forms of discrimination are those that operate quietly in the background, masquerading as neutral bureaucracy.

Sure, but it usually boils down to someone's subjective interpretation.

Is it really discrimination against fire if you take one bad experience or some hearsay and decide the whole category is just "danger"? When dealing with human social issues, things get messy. A generalization might be factually wrong—meaning it isn't an accurate representation of reality—but it could also be driven by social pressure, cultural norms, or shared values. For true discrimination to exist, there has to be a collective social attitude toward that generalization. And naturally, that attitude can be directed at an entire community, not just one person.

It’s like watching someone spin their wheels just to keep from stalling out—just going through the motions to make the hours pass by without actually getting anywhere. 😍

Quincy:

Discrimination—it’s one of those heavy, complicated topics that seems to bubble up in every corner of our society, doesn't it? It isn't just some abstract concept you read about in a sociology textbook; it’s something that plays out in real-time, affecting how people move through their lives, from applying for a job at a major firm like Google to simply trying to rent an apartment in a city like Chicago. When we talk about it, I think we often get caught up in the legal definitions—the stuff you see in civil rights legislation or court rulings—but there’s a much more granular, human side to it. It’s the subtle stuff, too. It’s not always a blatant, shouted slur in the street; more often than not, it’s that quiet, systemic bias—the kind of "unconscious" hesitation a hiring manager might feel, or the way certain neighborhoods end up being overlooked by big banks when it comes to mortgage approvals. It’s like a slow leak in a tire; you might not notice it immediately, but eventually, you realize you aren't going as far or as fast as you should have been able to. I've always felt that addressing it requires more than just passing a law or checking a box for diversity training. Sure, those things matter—they provide the framework—but true change feels much more personal. It’s about how we interact with one another in our daily lives, in our local communities, and in our workplaces. It’s about recognizing that everyone carries these invisible baggage sets of assumptions, and the work lies in unpacking them. It’s a long, sometimes messy process of unlearning, but if we want a society that actually lives up to its promises, it’s a conversation we can't afford to skip. Back in the 1640s, we first started seeing the term "making distinctions" pop up—it comes from that Latin root *discriminatio*, which basically just means the act of telling things apart. It’s interesting how language shifts, though; while it started out as a neutral way to describe discernment, by 1866, the American English usage took a much darker turn toward prejudice and racial bias. It’s one of those classic examples of how a word can evolve from a simple tool for clarity into something used to divide people.

And here’s a quote that I think is worth chewing on for a minute: It honestly gets under my skin whenever I hear people throw around the word "discrimination" when they’re actually talking about racism. It’s a bit of a linguistic mess, isn't it? If you really look at what the word means—the actual capacity to tell things apart and make distinctions—then the racist is actually failing at the very thing they claim to be doing. By taking an entire group of people and lazily grouping them all together under one label, they aren't being discerning at all. They're just being blunt. As Christopher Hitchens once pointed out, the ability to truly discriminate is actually a vital skill; by assuming every single person in one "race" is identical, the racist is basically proving they lack the mental faculty to actually discriminate.

Quincy:

Discrimination—it’s one of those heavy, loaded words that usually gets tossed around in heated debates, but if we really pull back the curtain and look at what it actually means, it’s a bit more nuanced than just the headlines suggest. At its core, to discriminate is simply to make a distinction. In a technical sense, you can discriminate between different shades of blue or tell the difference between a genuine Rolex and a knockoff from a street vendor in New York. That kind of discernment? It’s actually a vital part of how we navigate the world. We have to make choices based on quality, reliability, or even just personal preference. But then, of course, there’s the darker side of the coin—the kind of discrimination that targets people based on who they are rather than what they do. That’s where the conversation shifts from simple "distinction" to something much more systemic and harmful. When we talk about unfair treatment or prejudice in the workplace or in our communities, we aren't talking about choosing a better cup of coffee; we're talking about fundamental inequalities that strip people of their dignity. It’s a tricky balance to strike, isn't it? On one hand, we need the ability to judge things—to be discerning and make informed decisions—but on the other, we have this massive responsibility to ensure that those judgments don't turn into tools for exclusion or oppression. It’s like the difference between a chef carefully selecting the best ingredients for a meal versus someone deciding who is "allowed" to sit at the table based on nothing but bias. One is about excellence, while the other is just plain wrong. Finding that line is probably one of the most important challenges we face as a society. So, I was digging through some etymology notes earlier—you know how I get when I stumble down one of those rabbit holes—and I came across the history of the word "discriminate." It’s actually pretty fascinating how much baggage a single word can carry over the centuries. If you trace it all the way back to the 1620s, it stems from that Latin root *discriminatus*, which basically just means "to divide" or "to separate." Think of it like sorting laundry or picking out the good apples from the bruised ones; it’s all about finding that distinction or interval between things. Back in the 17th century, people even used it as an adjective just to mean something was "distinct." It was a neutral, almost mathematical way of describing a difference. But then, things take a turn. The negative side of the word—specifically the way we use it to describe racial prejudice—doesn't show up in the records until around 1866. It’s wild to think how a term that started as a simple way to describe making distinctions evolved into something so heavy and loaded in the American lexicon. Even today, while we still use "discriminating" in a positive light—like having a "discriminating palate" when you're picking out a fine bourbon or a good steak—that darker, more systemic meaning is always right there under the surface. It just goes to show how much our language shifts based on the weight of our history.

Quincy:

It’s funny how we talk about "discerning" things like it’s some sort of high-level skill—something reserved for art critics at the MoMA or sommeliers sniffing expensive Napa Valley reds—but honestly, I think it’s just a fancy way of saying you’ve finally learned how to pay attention. Most people spend their lives skimming the surface, you know? They see the headline, they hear the gist, and they move on without ever really digging into the "why" behind the "what." It’s like driving through a massive sprawl like Chicago; if you’re just looking at the GPS, you aren't actually *seeing* the city. You’re missing the textures, the small details, the subtle shifts in the atmosphere that tell you what a place is actually about. To me, discernment isn't about being judgmental or acting like you're better than everyone else—I hate that kind of elitism. It’s more about developing a bit of a mental filter. In a world where we are constantly being bombarded by noise—social media feeds, endless news cycles, even those loud-mouthed neighbors—having the ability to sift through the junk and find the actual substance is a superpower. It’s about being able to look at a situation, or a person, or even a piece of information, and say, "Okay, there’s the signal, and there’s all this other static." Think about it like cooking. Anyone can throw salt and pepper into a pan, but it takes a certain level of intuition—a real sense of discernment—to understand how a pinch of cumin is going to change the entire profile of a dish. You have to understand the components before you can judge the whole. I guess what I’m getting at is that being able to discern is really just a byproduct of being intentional. If you’re moving through life on autopilot, you aren't discerning anything; you're just reacting. But if you take that extra second to pause, to weigh things, and to ask if what you're seeing is actually true or just well-packaged... well, that’s when things start to get interesting. It’s a slow process, definitely not something you pick up overnight, but it makes the world feel a lot less chaotic once you get the hang of it. If you look back at where the word "discern" actually comes from, it’s got this really interesting history that feels much more active than how we use it today. It shows up in late 14th-century English, pulling from Old French roots like *discerner*, which basically meant to distinguish things or pull them apart—sort of like sifting through something to find what matters. If you dig even deeper, you hit the Latin *discernere*. It’s built from two parts: *dis-* (meaning off or away) and *cernere* (which means to sift, separate, or distinguish). It’s a lot like how we talk about a "crisis"—it’s all about that process of separating the wheat from the chaff, or making that sharp distinction between one thing and another. So, when we talk about being "discerning" nowadays, we're really just tapping into that ancient idea of sifting through the noise to see what's actually there.

So, here’s the thing—and it’s the same old story every single time—most people seem to be operating on a pretty low frequency. They have this weird, knee-jerk reaction where they assume that the ability to discriminate is inherently some kind of moral failing. But honestly? If we didn't have that fundamental capacity to filter through information and make distinctions, most of us wouldn't even make it past the first week of life. It’s basic survival, really. ☕

Got a tough one for me? Lay it on me—I'm ready. 😍 !?

There’s really nothing subjective about discrimination. I mean, we know exactly what it is: it’s when an individual or a specific group is denied the same rights as everyone else. It can be formal—you know, actually written into the laws—or it can be informal.

I suppose you could argue that discrimination, when viewed as a positive thing, is actually just a form of discernment. But when we talk about discrimination in a negative sense, what we’re really looking at is the rejection of something inherently good. I mean, if you decide not to hire someone because you’ve reasonably assessed they simply aren't qualified for the role, that isn't really discrimination in the way people usually complain about it. It’s just practical. However, if you refuse to hire someone just because they happen to be a woman, a Black person, or gay, then you're entering negative territory. The reason for that, I guess, is that the characteristic being used to discriminate has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job—or at least, it doesn't have any impact significant enough to justify treating them differently. You might hear someone make some sweeping generalization, like saying "people from Texas are tougher because of their genes" or "New Yorkers are more sophisticated," but those kinds of stereotypes shouldn't be a valid reason to deny a Texan a job at a museum or prevent a New Yorker from becoming a CEO. It's just... I don't know, it feels too flimsy to be a real basis for anything.

William Torres said:I suppose you could argue that discrimination, when viewed as a positive thing, is actually just a form of discernment. But when we talk about discrimination in a negative sense, what we’re really looking at is the rejection of something inherently good. I mean, if you decide not to hire someone because you’ve reasonably assessed they simply aren't qualified for the role, that isn't really discrimination in the way people usually complain about it. It’s just practical. However, if you refuse to hire someone just because they happen to be a woman, a Black person, or gay, then you're entering negative territory. The reason for that, I guess, is that the characteristic being used to discriminate has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job—or at least, it doesn't have any impact significant enough to justify treating them differently. You might hear someone make some sweeping generalization, like saying "people from Texas are tougher because of their genes" or "New Yorkers are more sophisticated," but those kinds of stereotypes shouldn't be a valid reason to deny a Texan a job at a museum or prevent a New Yorker from becoming a CEO. It's just... I don't know, it feels too flimsy to be a real basis for anything.

I certainly concur; however, one could argue that discrimination also manifests when those who refuse to conform to this modern brand of narrow-mindedness—this so-called political correctness dictated by Americans as they aggressively export their version of 'peace' to the rest of the globe—are effectively silenced within the mainstream media outlets.

That would be a violation of the right to free speech and expression, Sisyphus. Pure censorship. I suppose there’s some level where censorship makes sense—you can't just broadcast every bit of garbage to the public. At least not in major media outlets. You might get something published in a tabloid like the New York Post, which still reaches a massive audience, and then it's gone. It’s ultimately the editor's prerogative at those outlets to decide whether something is actually worth printing. Or did you think prime time news slots should be reserved for every random person's opinion on how to fix the country and the world? The reality is that ideas need time to gain traction, mostly because the dominant ideologies have the backing of massive capital and powerful interest groups behind them. But you have to be persistent; if you're actually right, you'll eventually break through. Most people will end up siding with you. Fidel Castro didn't let that kind of nonsense shake him. One minute he was calling out the church, the next he was pivoting toward capitalism... it doesn't really matter, the point is he stayed stubborn, he was certain he was right, and in the end, he got his way. Without any help from Americans. Hard work pays off. For instance, nobody just handed Matija Babić a media empire on a silver platter; he built his own platform fueled by Severina's charms, and he continues to sail along smoothly, publishing whatever he damn well pleases.

Discrimination is essentially when you deny someone something based on an arbitrary characteristic.

What we’re seeing today under the label of "discrimination" is actually just what some might call positive discrimination—it’s similar to the point @shamantrixx was making earlier.

In other words, it isn't really a matter of redefining discrimination itself, but rather a complete redefinition of what we consider to be "positive."

William Torres said:That would be a violation of the right to free speech and expression, Sisyphus. Pure censorship. I suppose there’s some level where censorship makes sense—you can't just broadcast every bit of garbage to the public. At least not in major media outlets. You might get something published in a tabloid like the New York Post, which still reaches a massive audience, and then it's gone. It’s ultimately the editor's prerogative at those outlets to decide whether something is actually worth printing. Or did you think prime time news slots should be reserved for every random person's opinion on how to fix the country and the world? The reality is that ideas need time to gain traction, mostly because the dominant ideologies have the backing of massive capital and powerful interest groups behind them. But you have to be persistent; if you're actually right, you'll eventually break through. Most people will end up siding with you. Fidel Castro didn't let that kind of nonsense shake him. One minute he was calling out the church, the next he was pivoting toward capitalism... it doesn't really matter, the point is he stayed stubborn, he was certain he was right, and in the end, he got his way. Without any help from Americans. Hard work pays off. For instance, nobody just handed Matija Babić a media empire on a silver platter; he built his own platform fueled by Severina's charms, and he continues to sail along smoothly, publishing whatever he damn well pleases.

True enough, yet it simultaneously functions as a form of discrimination; quite often, those who possess the courage to think independently find themselves marginalized, while those who simply parrot the prevailing, narrow-minded consensus are the ones being elevated.

Sophia Taylor87 said:There’s really nothing subjective about discrimination. I mean, we know exactly what it is: it’s when an individual or a specific group is denied the same rights as everyone else. It can be formal—you know, actually written into the laws—or it can be informal.

The logic is identical whether you're afraid of Black people because you believe they're thieves, or if you refuse to run in front of cars because you're "discriminating" against them as potential killers on the road.

The human psyche runs on generalizations and assumptions; we aren't capable of objectively analyzing everything 24/7.

Now, some of those things might be right, others wrong—useful, or harmful. Human society adds extra layers of complexity. Even if there seems to be a reason for discrimination on the surface—say, having more local experience with Black criminals than white ones—that can be deceptive. The causes probably aren't tied to skin color, and besides, that very discrimination can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our behavior toward a specific group can effectively push them into those exact patterns.

Then there’s the issue of group identity and how it separates us from others. This is pretty well-proven experimentally; these phenomena pop up even when people invent completely nonsensical ways to identify with a group without any objective basis. It’s also been shown that we behave differently based on different levels of identification (immediate family, extended family, friends, nation, race), even when we think we aren't doing it consciously.

So, discrimination is a byproduct of innate, basic mechanisms shared by animals—things that are inherently subjective and instinctive. We fight against it through education and legislation because, at a certain point in societal development, those instincts stop making sense.

Since we're talking about instinctive behavior and projected generalizations, I don't see what's objective here. It isn't like you're discriminating rationally based on rigorous research and statistical data analysis. But even then, it would still be subjective because it's a social phenomenon. All values and stances of this kind are negotiated and relative. Basically, we're just talking about the subjective viewpoints of an individual or a group...

feralranger said:True enough, yet it simultaneously functions as a form of discrimination; quite often, those who possess the courage to think independently find themselves marginalized, while those who simply parrot the prevailing, narrow-minded consensus are the ones being elevated.

I see what you mean. It’s always been that way, I guess, but maybe things have gotten even worse lately. For instance, someone who thinks independently and pushes back against the prevailing ignorance is seen as provocative. They trigger a reaction from everyone around them simply by being different, which allows them to spread their ideas—even if that reaction is negative. Nowadays, though, they’re basically protected like a grizzly bear in a national park because of political correctness; they can't really provoke anyone through their uniqueness anymore, but they can certainly stir up disgust in people who find political correctness intolerable. On the flip side, standing up against the dominant stupidity doesn't necessarily mean you aren't being narrow-minded yourself. You could just be representing a more submissive kind of ignorance—one that isn't currently the majority but would really like to be. So, in a way, you're still just adopting someone else's perspective; you're just not the dominant one right now, and that's about it.

Even the critics of political correctness don't seem particularly provocative in today's world. It’s become politically acceptable to give them a platform to vent about how unnecessary or harmful political correctness is. In doing so, they might cause a tiny bit of distaste because of their stance, and perhaps even more distaste because they aren't actually at any risk when they say it—mostly because the terror of political correctness keeps them safe. 😁

Even if they were actually facing any real danger, I doubt anyone would believe them, or frankly, most people wouldn't care—much like how Peratović, Margetić, and others who act like Tomislav Karamarko is breathing down their necks found out. I sometimes wonder if he’s actually that much of a threat to them (it almost seems like he'd be worse than Lavrentiy Beria and Heinrich Himmler combined) or if they just talk like that because it's good for business. A few minor arrests here and there doesn't really cut it compared to guys like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr. Honestly, this whole debate over discrimination has become somewhat trivial. The bigger issue, I think, is that we're all effectively "discriminated" against because a tiny handful of wealthy elites (that 1%) holds onto nearly everything (90%), but I suppose that just falls under "protecting private property," which is supposedly the bedrock of democracy...🤷

If we're being honest, this is straight-up discrimination:

Resistance Captain Josip Mardešić was executed back in 1944 because he was gay.

But then you have Josip Manolić claiming that "it was a drastic, yet justified act given the era." And I guess nobody really dares to question his perspective. I mean, the man is elderly now, and we probably shouldn't be discriminating against seniors just because they happen to justify killings from decades ago when they were young and full of vigor. One of the "judges"—a political commissar—later ended up serving a massive prison sentence at Alcatraz because he aligned himself with the Cominform, eventually hanging himself in his cell (or maybe he was pushed... honestly, nobody ever truly knew what happened in those places), while another guy managed to become a successful diplomat, serving as an ambassador in North Vietnam and Cambodia—which used to be called Kampuchia (where he maintained ties with the Khmer Rouge, those folks who slaughtered two million of their own people mostly just for having more than a primary school education)—and he actually ended up buried in the Hall of Fame.

So, if you think about it, it’s actual discrimination. The first guy was shot because he was gay, even though he likely wasn't some kind of killer. The second guy was a murderer and a total scumbag who hanged himself simply because he chose to side with the submissive type of tyranny (Joseph Stalin) instead of the dominant type (Josip Broz Marshall). The third guy correctly calculated which brand of tyranny to align with, so despite being a scumbag and a killer himself, he got buried with honors. He basically just helped strengthen our international ties with other killers. Manolić claims these were just "people of the people," primitive but correct. And since he helped build the very state we live in today, alongside Ngo Dinh Diem (whom he essentially helped install), he apparently earns the right to be immune to criticism.

If intellectual property rights actually exist, I am hereby declaring that I conceived this entirely on my own 😁 without reading or copying it from any source 😁 and thus I am claiming the patent for this monumental discovery 🙂

Essentially, my Daimon 😲 "whispered" an insight to me that is so startlingly unique, it hasn't occurred to anyone else in history 😲

Go ahead—name a single law in any country on Earth that doesn't discriminate against someone!

The fact that you can't produce such a law says everything about our legal systems, the nature of discrimination, the fabric of the universe, and the significance of the number 42 🤷

I haven't been able to find any information regarding that specific term... I'm afraid I might be missing some context here. kaže:
Go ahead—name just one single law, in any country on this planet, that doesn't discriminate against someone...

The Civil Rights Act...
The Anti-Discrimination Act...
The Anti-Discrimination Act (published in the official federal register)...

Discrimination is essentially the systematic stripping away of equal rights—a process that leads directly to social division and segregation... It’s more than just an unfair act; it is the fundamental mechanism used to isolate individuals and dismantle the very concept of equality within our society.