Name some acceptable forms of discrimination.

[Lagmonster]

If you take the time to look at the anti-discrimination policies of some businesses or organizations (and here I am thinking of universities), you'll come across poorly-conceived statements such as "We do not tolerate any form of discrimination against our tenants/ employees/ students". Left unsaid among intelligent people is the fact that people do not differ substantially in terms of race, except if you're administering primaquine or casting an actor for Black Cock Gangbang 2. But because discrimination exists in shades of grey means that there is a point somewhere in the middle where people are going to strongly disagree over whether something is acceptable or not, like the many people who have tried to sue Hooters for discriminatory hiring policies.

The easiest thing that comes to mind that gets away with it on principle are art businesses. No matter how accomplished or handsome or whatever a black or asian actor is, he isn't going to be chosen to play General Lee, and no amount of accusations of racist hiring policies will make any difference. For that matter, how fucked up would you have to be to cast asians in blackface as plantation slaves, and have them toiling in the fields while black men in white makeup and big hats call them niggers? If I was making a movie about slavery, I'd damn well implement some 'racist' hiring policies (unless, apparently, I'm making a fantasy movie, in which case I can cast Samoans as Egyptians and the hell with it because Americans can't tell the difference).

There's almost certainly other examples of things which would seem to be controversially discriminatory but yet exist for good or acceptable reason.

[General Zod]

Are we talking racial discrimination or just general discrimination? If it's general discrimination then not selecting employees or tenants based on criminal backgrounds is one of the more obvious and acceptable forms.

Discriminating on appearance can be to a degree. For a company that hires people and expects to maintain a neat professional appearance, you're not going to hire someone who doesn't have anything but jeans in their wardrobe. This might leave out some qualified poor people, but appearances can affect your business drastically in this case.

[Steel]

Discrimination based on merit?

Lets not forget that discrimination actually just means differentiating between things. Every day people are 'discriminated against' at job interviews or other places where people have their abilities assesed and decisions based upon that assessment.

Now theres nothing wrong with discrimination in the sense of noticing differences between people, but it can be wrong to use observed characteristics that are irrelevant to the criteria you are selecting for.
Eg dont hire an accountant because hes black would obviously be wrong.
Then there is the secondary question of whether of not the criteria you have set are racist/illegal or not...

[mr friendly guy]

Descrimination based on physical fitness would be a selective one, if your business was something like gym and you needed instructors. Not only must they be fit enough to do all those class exercises, they also need to promote an image of fitness which is important for a gym.

[FSTargetDrone]

The easiest thing that comes to mind that gets away with it on principle are art businesses. No matter how accomplished or handsome or whatever a black or asian actor is, he isn't going to be chosen to play General Lee, and no amount of accusations of racist hiring policies will make any difference.

As an aside, a black actor playing a General Lee-type character could be interesting. Think of White Man's Burden applied to 1860s USA.

[darthbob88]

The example I usually use when discussing reasonable discrimination based on race is a window-washing company refusing to hire somebody of eastern Asian descent, on the grounds that they are, by and large, shorter than other ethnicities, and that taller people are preferred for washing windows. That does break down with people like this dude, though.

[kinnison]

How about discriminating against a Moslem for a job in airport security? And do I need to spell out why that might be a good idea?

[Soldier of Entropy]

How about discriminating against a Moslem for a job in airport security? And do I need to spell out why that might be a good idea?

1) It's Muslim, not Moslem.
2)You shouldn't absolutely refuse to hire them, if that's what you're saying. EVERYONE should have background checks. Refusing to hire an Iranian citizen as a US airport guard though...even that is wrong, though you should be very stringent in your background checks.

[andrewgpaul]

How about discriminating against a Moslem for a job in airport security? And do I need to spell out why that might be a good idea?

Yes, you do. Muslim =/= member of al-Quaeda.

[Lagmonster]

Ageism is certainly a good example of a claimed evil that isn't always evil at all. Someone who didn't discriminate between someone who is 8 and someone who is 80 is insane. Even discriminating between an 18 year old and a 25 year old or a 25 year old and a 30 year old can be reasonable in some circumstances; people differ substantially even within those short spans. Hell, auto insurance companies have that one figured out.

[Lusankya]

The example I usually use when discussing reasonable discrimination based on race is a window-washing company refusing to hire somebody of eastern Asian descent, on the grounds that they are, by and large, shorter than other ethnicities, and that taller people are preferred for washing windows. That does break down with people like this dude, though.

Wouldn't that be discrimination based on the individual being short, rather than because of their race?

A few examples that I can think of:

For positions that involve dealing with disadvantaged minorities, it may sometimes be preferable for the person in that position to be a part of said minority. Especially if it's a teaching role, or a role that requires education, their position as a member of that minority group may encourage others to better themselves more than if the person in the position was white, as it would allow the minority group to see that being a part of the group does not prevent them from doing anything.

Trauma counselling. If a rape victim feels more comfortable talking to a woman about her experience than she would to a man, then she should damn well be allowed to do that without being accused of being sexist. And I wouldn't hold it against rape counselling institutions if they hired primarily women for such positions, since it is quite likely that a rape victim would be better served with a female counsellor than a male one.

[kinnison]

How about discriminating against a Moslem for a job in airport security? And do I need to spell out why that might be a good idea?

Yes, you do. Muslim =/= member of al-Quaeda.

Sure. And it is also true that a member of Al Qaeda is highly unlikely to declare himself as such, and that a Moslem is a hell of a lot more likely to be such a member than is a Baptist.

Discrimination while putting people through security might also be exceedingly useful; a recent example of the ridiculous things that bending over backwards to be non-discriminating can lead to is a retired US WWII general being body-searched and the offending item being confiscated by the TSA because it has sharp points. The offending item was his Medal of Honor.

[General Zod]

Sure. And it is also true that a member of Al Qaeda is highly unlikely to declare himself as such, and that a Moslem is a hell of a lot more likely to be such a member than is a Baptist.

Discrimination while putting people through security might also be exceedingly useful; a recent example of the ridiculous things that bending over backwards to be non-discriminating can lead to is a retired US WWII general being body-searched and the offending item being confiscated by the TSA because it has sharp points. The offending item was his Medal of Honor.

Do you have any kind of idea what kind of shitstorm people would make when you start asking whether they were Muslim? Assuming people did put this in place what makes you think potential Al Qaeda hires wouldn't just lie about their religious affiliation to get in once they learned of the practice?

[brianeyci]

Ah, kinnison with her misunderstanding of statistics again. And another personal ancedote to boot. If an airline says do not bring sharp objects, I don't give a flying fuck if he saved the world. The military is not a sacred cow, and neither are five star generals.

How many Muslims are terrorists? More importantly, how many domestic Muslims are terrorists?

You want to discriminate against Muslims because a subset of Muslims, a statistically insignificant one, are terrorists, at airport security jobs. Not to mention it's the chicken before the egg: 9/11 bombers did not gain access through employment at airport security. It's also ironic after your correlation != causation rant.

What the hell are background checks for? Case in point, the military asks you if you've ever visited or if your family is from a list of countries, and if you have been they go through extensive background checks before they let you in. It results in a delay, and not an outright rejection.

[Master of Ossus]

How many Muslims are terrorists? More importantly, how many domestic Muslims are terrorists?

That's not the question, though. The issue is what fraction of traveling muslims are terrorists as compared with the rest of the population. How many airline passengers or employees are terrorists? You're asking the wrong question and therefore coming to the wrong conclusion.

You want to discriminate against Muslims because a subset of Muslims, a statistically insignificant one, are terrorists, at airport security jobs. Not to mention it's the chicken before the egg: 9/11 bombers did not gain access through employment at airport security. It's also ironic after your correlation != causation rant.

That's potentially useful, since there are limited security resources.

What the hell are background checks for? Case in point, the military asks you if you've ever visited or if your family is from a list of countries, and if you have been they go through extensive background checks before they let you in. It results in a delay, and not an outright rejection.

Presumably they're for the same thing. They can just be made more accurate and/or less resource intensive if you add in racial or religious profiling.

[Darth Wong]

Most serial killers in America are white males. In keeping with the current direction of the thread, I recommend that every white male in the neighbourhood of any serial killing be investigated, searched, and subjected to various forms of screening.

[Master of Ossus]

Most serial killers in America are white males. In keeping with the current direction of the thread, I recommend that every white male in the neighbourhood of any serial killing be investigated, searched, and subjected to various forms of screening.

I would support that if the US made it a national priority to search for serial killers. I think we spend too much money securing airports as it is, but when we're already committed to spending money I think it should be as targeted as possible to achieve the results necessary.

Also, when serial killers are detected, the police and FBI almost always come in with forensic profilers to (among other things) identify the race of the killer to focus their searches more carefully. It's a stretch to say that we're not doing this, we just have even better predictive memes that can be employed fairly easily, there, and we don't necessarily have that ability in airport security.

[brianeyci]

So because a statistically insignificant subset of terrorists are Muslim you want to inconvenience and delay the vast majority of Muslims? Why the fuck should I have to prove that traveling Muslims are less likely to be terrorists? If I ask the exact same question, how many traveling Muslims are terrorists, doesn't matter a shit: it's still whoever makes the claim who has to prove that targeting Muslims would lower the number of terrorist attacks. That's the question to ask MoS, so you come to the wrong conclusion. Are you making the claim that a statistically significant of traveling Muslims are terrorists? If so I want proof of that.

You are also trying to shift the topic of the thread. She mentioned airport security jobs, not just traveling Muslims. If you're hiring someone as an airport security job, it is not time sensitive and you can take time to figure out if he's Bin Laden in disguise. Of course it'll cost more but that should be trivial since you should screen airport workers anyway, just like teachers and police officers.

The worst part is the same people who support these measures are usually rabid anti-gun. Maybe there's limited police resources, so they should go after gun owners. After all, crimes are committed by guns, and even though the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens, we should go after gun owners as a group and not target the specific subset of gun owners with criminal records, right?

[brianeyci]

I can't believe that we're discussing discrimination based on religious grounds. Last time I checked religion was a protected freedom in most Charter of Rights. I completely understand in a time sensitive situation: an airport security guard works by instinct. All of policing and security is based on instinct. If the guy's instinct tells him that guy over there, looks shady, might be a terrorist, then go after him, then curtailing that instinct may be dangerous and counter-productive to policing.

But making this an institutional policy in regards to employment? Give me a break. Next time let's have anybody who's not Christian barred from any sensitive job at all.

[General Zod]

The worst part is the same people who support these measures are usually rabid anti-gun. Maybe there's limited police resources, so they should go after gun owners. After all, crimes are committed by guns, and even though the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens, we should go after gun owners as a group and not target the specific subset of gun owners with criminal records, right?

Speaking of changing the topic, what the fuck does gun control have to do with anything aside from a not-so-subtle hijack?

[brianeyci]

Nothing, just like white serial killers has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Feeling a bit nitpicky today eh Zod? I know what I'm doing: this is not the first time kinnison has butchered ancedotal evidence and discussed "discrimination" based on no evidence at all. She called non-whites getting easier employment in the government and police over whites as unfair discrimination, even though it was pointed to her the number of non-whites in police was minimal in her jurisdiction.

[General Zod]

Nothing, just like white serial killers has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

That was actually relevant since it was based on usual discrimination targets like race or religion. But gun owners? How the fuck is that relevant?

[General Zod]

Nothing, just like white serial killers has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

That was actually relevant since it was based on usual discrimination targets like race or religion. But gun owners? How the fuck is that relevant?

Ghetto edit: Let me put it another way. When was the last time you heard of someone being turned down a job because they owned a rifle and were a card carrying member of the NRAA?

[Master of Ossus]

So because a statistically insignificant subset of terrorists are Muslim you want to inconvenience and delay the vast majority of Muslims?

We're already inconveniencing people--the question is to we target the inconvenience more carefully to provide better protection for everyone else.

Why the fuck should I have to prove that traveling Muslims are less likely to be terrorists?

You don't have to prove it. There is evidence suggesting that they are MORE LIKELY to be terrorists, which is why all of the main profiles tip-toe around the question.

If I ask the exact same question, how many traveling Muslims are terrorists, doesn't matter a shit: it's still whoever makes the claim who has to prove that targeting Muslims would lower the number of terrorist attacks.

Newsflash: terrorist groups have, historically, selected young and middle aged Arab men to be suicide bombers. That is their lowest-cost option for suicide attacks on aircraft. If you target their lowest-cost option specifically, you save lives and make them spend resources to either recruit other groups of people (which is obviously harder for them to do), or you reduce the number of successful attacks.

That's the question to ask MoS, so you come to the wrong conclusion. Are you making the claim that a statistically significant of traveling Muslims are terrorists? If so I want proof of that.

Suicide bombing attacks on airliners have been overwhelmingly carried out by Arab Muslim males between the ages of 15 and 45. That is sufficient evidence to warrant extra security focus on them.

You are also trying to shift the topic of the thread. She mentioned airport security jobs, not just traveling Muslims. If you're hiring someone as an airport security job, it is not time sensitive and you can take time to figure out if he's Bin Laden in disguise. Of course it'll cost more but that should be trivial since you should screen airport workers anyway, just like teachers and police officers.

True, and they should get additional screening. Nonetheless, even if you have unlimited time it still takes resources and resources can be targeted more precisely than "just look at everyone as if we have no way of differentiating between them a priori."

The worst part is the same people who support these measures are usually rabid anti-gun. Maybe there's limited police resources, so they should go after gun owners. After all, crimes are committed by guns, and even though the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens, we should go after gun owners as a group and not target the specific subset of gun owners with criminal records, right?

When you see a gun crime committed, you should look for people who have that type of firearm. What part of this is difficult for you to understand? Moreover, there are all sorts of laws and restrictions on purchasing and carrying firearms designed to minimize risks including (TA DAH!) background checks.

[Soldier of Entropy]

How about discriminating against a Moslem for a job in airport security? And do I need to spell out why that might be a good idea?

Yes, you do. Muslim =/= member of al-Quaeda.

Sure. And it is also true that a member of Al Qaeda is highly unlikely to declare himself as such, and that a Moslem is a hell of a lot more likely to be such a member than is a Baptist.

Discrimination while putting people through security might also be exceedingly useful; a recent example of the ridiculous things that bending over backwards to be non-discriminating can lead to is a retired US WWII general being body-searched and the offending item being confiscated by the TSA because it has sharp points. The offending item was his Medal of Honor.

Once again, MUSLIM! And, based on that, no christian should be allowed to be an airport guard, due to terrorist groups such as Army of God. Also, no Jews should be allowed to be airport guards, based on the existence of Kahane Kai. Or perhaps all animal-rights activists because of Earth Liberation Front. Seems to me the problem is extremism, not any specific group.
PS-No, I am not Muslim.