What exactly is discrimination?

.. discrimination just means... making a distinction..
.. take vegetarians, for example.. they discriminate against meat as a food source..

.. I found something interesting recently.. not strictly about this topic, but it’s close enough..

.. she says.. how can you tell who lacks rights in any given country..?
.. well.. she says.. look at where the baton is being pointed.. yeah.. that’s your answer..

Jonathan Brooks8 said:

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.

.. so .. if I went to sign up for a Juilliard dance program today .. and they turned me away ..
.. would that count as discrimination ..?

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?

I can give you a similar example. Plenty of stuff is written into US law and is supposed to be strictly enforced—like maternity leave laws—yet you still see an employer fire a pregnant woman. That’s a specific kind of discrimination at a certain level. Or take when someone volunteers for a disability advocacy group and hangs out with them to show they care, but then in public, people see a person with a disability out with a girl and say, "I bet he's paying her to look good with him." They're stripping away that person's right to normalcy and sexuality through blatant, conscious or unconscious discrimination. Or even more common: when someone joins a bigoted crowd just to blend in and avoid being targeted themselves.
Great topic.

Michael Castillo said:.. discrimination just means... making a distinction..
.. take vegetarians, for example.. they discriminate against meat as a food source..

.. I found something interesting recently.. not strictly about this topic, but it’s close enough..

.. she says.. how can you tell who lacks rights in any given country..?
.. well.. she says.. look at where the baton is being pointed.. yeah.. that’s your answer..

Well, this is certainly a massive leap forward in how we interpret discrimination. We should probably just scrap all our legal codes and textbooks entirely—and maybe send the professors back to freshman year at NYU while we're at it.

Michael Castillo said:.. so .. if I went to apply to a performing arts academy right now .. and they turned me away ..
.. would that be considered discrimination ..?

Oh, absolutely—because if you were a carrot, I'm sure you'd get an audition.

Discrimination is such a fuzzy concept, honestly—it really all depends on the context and how people are interacting. Like, say I’m just naturally a bit slow on the uptake—not my fault, right?—and someone points that out to me. That isn't discrimination; they're just calling it like they see it, and hey, maybe they're actually doing me a favor by being blunt. But, if that same person keeps harping on about how stupid I am, even if they technically have a point, then we've crossed into discrimination territory. I didn't choose my IQ level, you know? It's a roll of the dice, and that person could easily be in my shoes. On the flip side, let’s look at a darker example, like a predator. You could have someone who's actually quite brilliant, well-educated, and seemingly a decent member of society, but they're fighting this innate, uncontrollable urge toward children. They struggle, they fight themselves, they're basically burning up inside trying to be better, but nature is just winning the battle. If society locks them up or sentences them to death because of those impulses, is that discrimination? In a way, yeah, sure, but it's "positive" discrimination. Society has to pull the plug to protect innocent lives. It’s more humane for one person to suffer than to risk thousands of others getting hurt. So, while the individual is being singled out, it's justified. However, once the public starts throwing around slurs or calling for a lynch mob without even knowing the actual facts or the specifics of the case... well, now we're talking real discrimination.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:

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.

Consider this: if you have a catalog listing 100 books from your library, and that catalog sits on a shelf alongside those same 100 books, does the catalog belong in the category of "books," or does it occupy some special niche? 🤷 😉
Do you then possess 100 books, or 101?

Is an act regulating anti-discrimination laws itself a law?
Technically, yes, but your response misses the essence of my inquiry, which was

Name me a single practical—not merely formalistic—law that no one finds discriminatory.

You will find that such a law simply does not exist. 😲

In other words:

To enact any law is, by its very nature, to limit certain rights or opportunities for some.😲

Therefore, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it is both absurd and pedantic to point a finger at the state, claiming it overlooked or "discriminated" against some minor entity, and then demand that absolutely no one be disadvantaged and that everyone receives their specific "rights" and every whim fulfilled.

I wanted to share my observation that we have birthed a modern chimera known as the IDOLATRY OF RIGHTS.
Driven by this selfish idolatry, people expect all their desires to be met,
cloaking these wants in the language of "rights" and scrutinizing every microscopic detail for any perceived slight against their interests.

As Marshall and the Party long ago noted—"the state is not a milk cow." 😲 😁

rapidmaker77 said:Consider this: if you have a catalog listing 100 books from your library, and that catalog sits on a shelf alongside those same 100 books, does the catalog belong in the category of "books," or does it occupy some special niche? 🤷 😉
Do you then possess 100 books, or 101?

Is an act regulating anti-discrimination laws itself a law?
Technically, yes, but your response misses the essence of my inquiry, which was

Name me a single practical—not merely formalistic—law that no one finds discriminatory.

You will find that such a law simply does not exist. 😲

In other words:

To enact any law is, by its very nature, to limit certain rights or opportunities for some.😲

Therefore, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it is both absurd and pedantic to point a finger at the state, claiming it overlooked or "discriminated" against some minor entity, and then demand that absolutely no one be disadvantaged and that everyone receives their specific "rights" and every whim fulfilled.

I wanted to share my observation that we have birthed a modern chimera known as the IDOLATRY OF RIGHTS.
Driven by this selfish idolatry, people expect all their desires to be met,
cloaking these wants in the language of "rights" and scrutinizing every microscopic detail for any perceived slight against their interests.

As Marshall and the Party long ago noted—"the state is not a milk cow." 😲 😁

Dear rapidmaker77,
it escapes me how someone who can clearly read and write fails to grasp the context in which something is defined as discrimination. Therefore, I shall assume—given your characteristically playful writing style—that you are merely "playing" to grab the readers' attention and provoke thought, which is a positive thing.

So... what you are suggesting isn't discrimination. A prohibition isn't inherently discriminatory if that prohibition applies to everyone equally. Not every law is discriminatory. However, for instance, the racial laws enacted during the Nazi era were undeniably discriminatory.

A truly discriminatory law would be one that places a specific racial, national, or religious group in a different position regarding rights and obligations compared to all other groups.
Or, personally speaking, if I were to follow the letter of the law and fulfill all my obligations just like everyone else, yet found myself denied the rights afforded to others, then I would be discriminated against. Or, conversely, if everyone else were permitted to bypass their legal duties while I alone was forced to comply—that would also constitute discrimination.

rapidmaker77 said:I wanted to share my impression that we have given birth to a chimera known as the IDOLATRY OF RIGHTS.
And people, in the spirit of this selfish idolatry, expect all their whims to be fulfilled
by invoking their "rights," searching for even the slightest hint of discrimination in every tiny detail of those rights.

It seems the heart of your question lies within this rabbit hole, so go ahead and shake out whatever you're holding...
Are you trying to say that everyone feels discriminated against when they aren't, just so they can claim rights they don't actually possess?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Dear rapidmaker77,
it escapes me how someone who can clearly read and write fails to grasp the context in which something is defined as discrimination. Therefore, I shall assume—given your characteristically playful writing style—that you are merely "playing" to grab the readers' attention and provoke thought, which is a positive thing.

So... what you are suggesting isn't discrimination. A prohibition isn't inherently discriminatory if that prohibition applies to everyone equally. Not every law is discriminatory. However, for instance, the racial laws enacted during the Nazi era were undeniably discriminatory.

A truly discriminatory law would be one that places a specific racial, national, or religious group in a different position regarding rights and obligations compared to all other groups.
Or, personally speaking, if I were to follow the letter of the law and fulfill all my obligations just like everyone else, yet found myself denied the rights afforded to others, then I would be discriminated against. Or, conversely, if everyone else were permitted to bypass their legal duties while I alone was forced to comply—that would also constitute discrimination.

It seems the heart of your question lies within this rabbit hole, so go ahead and shake out whatever you're holding...
Are you trying to say that everyone feels discriminated against when they aren't, just so they can claim rights they don't actually possess?

I truly cannot say.🤷
Look, if you want my help navigating this current mess, I need you to be direct. Give me the facts, lay them out clearly, and once everything is perfectly transparent, I’ll provide you with an assessment that is both concrete and fair.
Is the legal definition of marriage—stating it is a union between a man and a woman—actually a positive or constructive piece of legislation?
Even a simple pairing of a man and a woman could be viewed as discriminatory.😉 And would you personally opt to replace him?
This law? It’s a total joke. It just jumps right over the mark!

That is why I assume—and considering your signaturely whimsical way of putting things—that you deliberately grab the reader's attention and stir up the forum just to provoke some actual thought, which I find to be a positive thing.

I didn't intend to go quite that deep; I simply wanted to gain some clarity for myself, with a bit of your help.
If I were ever appointed to the Supreme Court, I would develop a rigorous methodology and a sharp intuitive sense to identify discrimination the moment it crossed my bench. 😍

What would constitute a discriminatory law? It would be any legislation that places a specific racial, national, or religious group in a different position regarding rights and obligations compared to everyone else.
Personally, if I were to strictly adhere to the letter of the law like everyone else, yet find myself being denied my basic rights in the process, that would constitute discrimination. Conversely, if the law were applied such that anyone could bypass their legal obligations while I alone was held to account, that would be just as much a violation of equality.

You tend to gravitate toward simplistic racial archetypes and broad generalizations, yet reality is far more nuanced than those surface-level principles suggest.
After all, life inherently possesses two fundamental dimensions: goodness and quality.

It’s quite simple, really: everyone has their own particular brand of indulgence. Some people find solace in a glass of bourbon, while others prefer to lose themselves in a thick novel or head out for a long trek through the Rockies.
It is common knowledge that the government supports literacy by funding public libraries, which allows us to borrow books at little to no cost.

The government offers absolutely zero support when it comes to fostering the growth of local breweries or making affordable beer more accessible to the public.
Is there an inherent bias in our society against those who enjoy a drink, compared to the supposed moral superiority of readers and hikers?🤷 Just let me know when everything finally clicks for you.

It seems your question is hiding somewhere deep within this rabbit hole, so go ahead—shake it out and let's see what you've actually got.
Are you suggesting that everyone is simply manufacturing a sense of victimhood? It seems as though people are desperate to claim they’ve been discriminated against—even when they haven't—just so they can leverage the Civil Rights Act to grab entitlements they haven't actually earned.

Of course, the logic seems perfectly clear to me, though I suspect most people are struggling to grasp it. My intention was simply to inject some clarity into the discussion and see if anyone could point out where my own reasoning might be flawed.🤷
I’ll be the first to admit I lack any real knack for philosophical definitions or playing semantic games, but I have an immediate—intuitive, visceral, let’s call it "humanist" 😍 sense of the situation...

It wouldn't make any sense within the framework of discrimination laws to whine that regulations regarding public libraries or marriage laws are discriminatory toward people who just want to drink all day, or men who prefer certain sexual acts with other men.
The question is, why aren't those specific groups considered discriminated against?

It’s because the state—society at large—functions much like any major employer would. It has DECIDED and EVALUATED what its priorities should be; it has ESTABLISHED STANDARDS BASED ON what serves the collective interest and the greater good of the country, such as supporting readers or traditional family structures. 😍

So, when we ask whether such standards constitute discrimination, should we turn to Socrates or Plato for an answer? 😉
Or is it already obvious to us philosophers that anything serving the common good and maintaining high societal standards is, by definition, justified? 🙂

👋

Look, I’m certainly no expert here, but my modest take is that it’s the very nature of quality itself that prevents us from grouping things together in the first place—you can't draw a comparison if you aren't comparing apples to apples, and if there's no valid comparison, then you can't exactly diagnose discrimination as a result of one.

To put it more bluntly: a marriage between a man and a woman represents one specific quality, whereas a same-sex union represents another entirely... they are distinct categories, which means neither a direct comparison nor a claim of discrimination holds water.

The same logic applies to readers versus, say, drunkards. If we really wanted to follow this line of reasoning, we should be comparing alcoholics to other types of addicts—asking why, for instance, certain groups get funding while others don't—since they all impose an equal burden on the American taxpayer, right?

Or, why fund readers specifically, when there are plenty of people pursuing education through other media who are just as engaged? That could easily be a point of comparison.

And so...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Look, I’m certainly no expert here, but my modest take is that it’s the very nature of quality itself that prevents us from grouping things together in the first place—you can't draw a comparison if you aren't comparing apples to apples, and if there's no valid comparison, then you can't exactly diagnose discrimination as a result of one.

To put it more bluntly: a marriage between a man and a woman represents one specific quality, whereas a same-sex union represents another entirely... they are distinct categories, which means neither a direct comparison nor a claim of discrimination holds water.

The same logic applies to readers versus, say, drunkards. If we really wanted to follow this line of reasoning, we should be comparing alcoholics to other types of addicts—asking why, for instance, certain groups get funding while others don't—since they all impose an equal burden on the American taxpayer, right?

Or, why fund readers specifically, when there are plenty of people pursuing education through other media who are just as engaged? That could easily be a point of comparison.

And so...

If only things actually worked that way. Right now, especially here in America, discrimination against same-sex couples is one of the biggest issues we face. Everyone's pushing it—except for the people smart enough to realize it's all nonsense. I mean, at the end of the day, it's just about who loves whom. It's absurd to even question it. If someone loves someone, they shouldn't be judged for it—though most people do anyway. It's a massive problem. And when you really think about it, the whole "who loves who" thing is trivial. It's so small it shouldn't even be a factor in anything else. Love, a kiss—is that really such a huge deal that it warrants discrimination? We're moving into a modern era where this will eventually just be accepted once the old guard dies off and a more open-minded generation takes over, which is great. It's tough being narrow-minded and discriminatory. People ask, "Why should I have to watch two guys kissing?"—then don't look! Who's forcing you? Seriously—it's a kiss!!! Since when did that become such a national crisis, considering everyone is doing it day and night? If we're going to discriminate, let's go all the way—why aren't old people kissing? Apparently, that's "disgusting" to some. Why aren't thirteen-year-olds kissing? Because the church and parents say it's too early. People exhaust themselves over stupidity when there are way bigger problems in the world and in their own lives, yet everyone wastes energy obsessing over an individual's choice of partner. That's what freedom is supposed to be. We think we live in a free, modern world, but we really don't. Freedom is the thing that gets discriminated against the most.

rapidmaker77 said:I truly cannot say.🤷
Look, if you want my help navigating this current mess, I need you to be direct. Give me the facts, lay them out clearly, and once everything is perfectly transparent, I’ll provide you with an assessment that is both concrete and fair.
Is the legal definition of marriage—stating it is a union between a man and a woman—actually a positive or constructive piece of legislation?
Even a simple pairing of a man and a woman could be viewed as discriminatory.😉 And would you personally opt to replace him?
This law? It’s a total joke. It just jumps right over the mark!

That is why I assume—and considering your signaturely whimsical way of putting things—that you deliberately grab the reader's attention and stir up the forum just to provoke some actual thought, which I find to be a positive thing.

I didn't intend to go quite that deep; I simply wanted to gain some clarity for myself, with a bit of your help.
If I were ever appointed to the Supreme Court, I would develop a rigorous methodology and a sharp intuitive sense to identify discrimination the moment it crossed my bench. 😍

What would constitute a discriminatory law? It would be any legislation that places a specific racial, national, or religious group in a different position regarding rights and obligations compared to everyone else.
Personally, if I were to strictly adhere to the letter of the law like everyone else, yet find myself being denied my basic rights in the process, that would constitute discrimination. Conversely, if the law were applied such that anyone could bypass their legal obligations while I alone was held to account, that would be just as much a violation of equality.

You tend to gravitate toward simplistic racial archetypes and broad generalizations, yet reality is far more nuanced than those surface-level principles suggest.
After all, life inherently possesses two fundamental dimensions: goodness and quality.

It’s quite simple, really: everyone has their own particular brand of indulgence. Some people find solace in a glass of bourbon, while others prefer to lose themselves in a thick novel or head out for a long trek through the Rockies.
It is common knowledge that the government supports literacy by funding public libraries, which allows us to borrow books at little to no cost.

The government offers absolutely zero support when it comes to fostering the growth of local breweries or making affordable beer more accessible to the public.
Is there an inherent bias in our society against those who enjoy a drink, compared to the supposed moral superiority of readers and hikers?🤷 Just let me know when everything finally clicks for you.

It seems your question is hiding somewhere deep within this rabbit hole, so go ahead—shake it out and let's see what you've actually got.
Are you suggesting that everyone is simply manufacturing a sense of victimhood? It seems as though people are desperate to claim they’ve been discriminated against—even when they haven't—just so they can leverage the Civil Rights Act to grab entitlements they haven't actually earned.

Of course, the logic seems perfectly clear to me, though I suspect most people are struggling to grasp it. My intention was simply to inject some clarity into the discussion and see if anyone could point out where my own reasoning might be flawed.🤷
I’ll be the first to admit I lack any real knack for philosophical definitions or playing semantic games, but I have an immediate—intuitive, visceral, let’s call it "humanist" 😍 sense of the situation...

It wouldn't make any sense within the framework of discrimination laws to whine that regulations regarding public libraries or marriage laws are discriminatory toward people who just want to drink all day, or men who prefer certain sexual acts with other men.
The question is, why aren't those specific groups considered discriminated against?

It’s because the state—society at large—functions much like any major employer would. It has DECIDED and EVALUATED what its priorities should be; it has ESTABLISHED STANDARDS BASED ON what serves the collective interest and the greater good of the country, such as supporting readers or traditional family structures. 😍

So, when we ask whether such standards constitute discrimination, should we turn to Socrates or Plato for an answer? 😉
Or is it already obvious to us philosophers that anything serving the common good and maintaining high societal standards is, by definition, justified? 🙂

👋

Don't even sweat it. Most people don't have a clue. What’s actually written in the Civil Rights Act isn't even enforced—half the stuff is just completely ignored. Take employment, for example. The law says people with disabilities should be prioritized for jobs, but in the real world? They can barely get an interview, let alone a position. Most people can't even point out a case of discrimination, let alone explain it or fix it—it's basically impossible because there are always these stubborn, narrow-minded people who refuse to change or accept anything new. It's always been this way, and honestly, it probably always will be. You can't fix the whole world, and even changing one person is a massive uphill battle. Discrimination is everywhere, and it's pathetic.

The first thing that jumps out at me is how we treat two identical elements totally differently just based on where they're standing. Take ethnic identity, for example. Here in America, citizens have the right to declare their heritage, but an American living abroad? Since they hold foreign citizenship, they don't get that same recognition. Honestly, looking at the world at large, there’s so much bias against us because we tend to grant more rights to others than anyone grants to us. That's discrimination, plain and simple. I feel like that whole imbalance would only disappear if we actually applied the same standards to ourselves that we do for everyone else.

Michael Castillo said:.. so .. if I went to sign up for a Juilliard dance program today .. and they turned me away ..
.. would that count as discrimination ..?

...give me a break...
...clearly you aren't a "real" vegetarian since you haven't stumbled upon the whole spiritual side of opting out of steak...

Michael Castillo said:.. so .. if I went to sign up for a Juilliard dance program today .. and they turned me away ..
.. would that count as discrimination ..?

...look, there are certain unwritten rules that most reasonable people just accept—things that have nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with what the profession, the audience, or the customers actually need...

...let’s say you're 45, totally bald, walking with a limp, hunched over like a cooked shrimp, weighing maybe 220 pounds, with teeth as yellow as a corn cob left out in the sun...
...you walk into a dance academy and expect them to teach you how to gracefully glide through Swan Lake or capture the delicate fragility of Bambi or the lightness of a hummingbird...
...everyone can see that nobody would even want to imagine that image, let alone pay money to watch it...

...but if you were young, slim, dark-haired, fit, looked great in tights, and could hold your pinky up while sipping your morning tea (basically, checking all the boxes), but then—say—you were of some minority background and because of that, instead of chasing your dream, you ended up scavenging copper wire and old car batteries—now *that* would be discrimination...

...the same goes for modeling...

...so yeah, that whole high-glamour vibe just isn't for you, buddy...
...stay happy being such a macho man...

analogwalker8 said:Discrimination is such a fuzzy concept, honestly—it really all depends on the context and how people are interacting. Like, say I’m just naturally a bit slow on the uptake—not my fault, right?—and someone points that out to me. That isn't discrimination; they're just calling it like they see it, and hey, maybe they're actually doing me a favor by being blunt. But, if that same person keeps harping on about how stupid I am, even if they technically have a point, then we've crossed into discrimination territory. I didn't choose my IQ level, you know? It's a roll of the dice, and that person could easily be in my shoes. On the flip side, let’s look at a darker example, like a predator. You could have someone who's actually quite brilliant, well-educated, and seemingly a decent member of society, but they're fighting this innate, uncontrollable urge toward children. They struggle, they fight themselves, they're basically burning up inside trying to be better, but nature is just winning the battle. If society locks them up or sentences them to death because of those impulses, is that discrimination? In a way, yeah, sure, but it's "positive" discrimination. Society has to pull the plug to protect innocent lives. It’s more humane for one person to suffer than to risk thousands of others getting hurt. So, while the individual is being singled out, it's justified. However, once the public starts throwing around slurs or calling for a lynch mob without even knowing the actual facts or the specifics of the case... well, now we're talking real discrimination.

.. I find myself unable to agree with this specific part of the post at all..
The concept of discrimination is inherently tied to the idea of injustice..

.. when we talk about pedophilia, we are discussing something that offers zero benefit to society under any circumstances.. and that kind of "innate trait" is incomparable to someone's "innate" skin color...
Skin color doesn't make a person a danger to those around them, does it?

A pedophile needs medical intervention or some other method of prevention, because they are absolutely harmful..
.. furthermore, one must be extremely cautious with the concept of affirmative action... because if we aren't careful, people will use it to justify almost anything, which leads us down a slippery slope toward a diluted version of evil..
In principle, it isn't a clear-cut black and white issue; rather, it's a deep, murky shade of gray.. 🙂

gentlegardener1 said:...give me a break...
...clearly you aren't a "real" vegetarian since you haven't stumbled upon the whole spiritual side of opting out of steak...

...look, there are certain unwritten rules that most reasonable people just accept—things that have nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with what the profession, the audience, or the customers actually need...

...let’s say you're 45, totally bald, walking with a limp, hunched over like a cooked shrimp, weighing maybe 220 pounds, with teeth as yellow as a corn cob left out in the sun...
...you walk into a dance academy and expect them to teach you how to gracefully glide through Swan Lake or capture the delicate fragility of Bambi or the lightness of a hummingbird...
...everyone can see that nobody would even want to imagine that image, let alone pay money to watch it...

...but if you were young, slim, dark-haired, fit, looked great in tights, and could hold your pinky up while sipping your morning tea (basically, checking all the boxes), but then—say—you were of some minority background and because of that, instead of chasing your dream, you ended up scavenging copper wire and old car batteries—now *that* would be discrimination...

...the same goes for modeling...

...so yeah, that whole high-glamour vibe just isn't for you, buddy...
...stay happy being such a macho man...

🤣 Absolutely brilliant!

.. you really ought to open a counseling center (or maybe a therapist's office) specifically for people with massive inferiority complexes... 😁

Question: Is it actually considered discrimination when an employer insists on formal education—like a specific degree from a university—or maybe certain years of prior experience—as a mandatory prerequisite for a job opening?

Paul Jones7 said:Question: Is it actually considered discrimination when an employer insists on formal education—like a specific degree from a university—or maybe certain years of prior experience—as a mandatory prerequisite for a job opening?

When it comes to requiring formal education, I don't believe it qualifies as discrimination; however, when you look at mandatory prior experience, that is where the line is crossed!

stormybadger6 said:When it comes to requiring formal education, I don't believe it qualifies as discrimination; however, when you look at mandatory prior experience, that is where the line is crossed!

Could you walk me through why you say it isn't, though, regarding the formal education side? I mean, who's to say someone who's self-taught hasn't actually mastered the material better than some candidate with a fancy degree?

I suppose you could call it discrimination... but...I'd argue it's the kind of discrimination that’s perfectly acceptable, and frankly, it should stay that way. At the end of the day, an employer isn't obligated to jump through hoops just to verify skills learned outside a classroom. Plus, I really think a company has every right to insist on seeing proven experience first.

Paul Jones7 said:Could you walk me through why you say it isn't, though, regarding the formal education side? I mean, who's to say someone who's self-taught hasn't actually mastered the material better than some candidate with a fancy degree?

I suppose you could call it discrimination... but...I'd argue it's the kind of discrimination that’s perfectly acceptable, and frankly, it should stay that way. At the end of the day, an employer isn't obligated to jump through hoops just to verify skills learned outside a classroom. Plus, I really think a company has every right to insist on seeing proven experience first.

.. look at it this way: you could travel the entire globe, survive being held captive, escape from confinement, master the art of jungle survival, summit the Himalayas, hunt mosquitoes, swim alongside penguins, pick up every local dialect from Cambodia to Guinea, marry women from all walks of life half a dozen times, divorce just as often, raise children, adopt, or even run for Congress or become a tribal leader...
all of those experiences will certainly benefit you, but your employer for a specific role with set requirements—including specific educational credentials on a formal level (which matters because you are signing a legal contract)—will find that your vast, lifetime experience carries absolutely no weight during the hiring process!!

Once you are eventually hired based on those contractual parameters, however, you will be able to use that real-world expertise to effortlessly show them who is truly in charge.. 😉

You’re going to have a hard time squeezing discrimination into the category of a "core philosophical concept."
It might overlap with ethics here and there, but honestly, the term carries much more weight in legal studies.