Apr 03, 05
|
help me satan-you owe me!
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss.myra
Yes, but "reverse" is the wrong word to use, period. Discrimination by definition doesn't indicate that it is only discrimination if it is towards a visible minority, a certain age group, sex, etc. Discrimination is reacting to two things differently.
Were you more looking to debate the apparent "equal opportunity" movement? (man 'equal opportunity' is a horrible term to use for what it actually is too.)
|
It's termed "reverse discrimination" because this discrimination is intended to reverse the pre-existing effects of general prior discrimination. "Reverse" has nothing to do with the object, subject or direction of the discrimination.
Reverse discrimination just means that they're discriminating openly & purposefully in an attempt to counter the effects of other discrimination whose affects have already been felt and cannot be undone.
Eg. Reasoning behind Affirmative Action: In US, on average more black ppl than white come from poor areas/families. With this comes a higher rate of crime, lower rate of university acceptance, etc. So, if you are born black, you are not given an equal opportunity as the average white person. Thus, a black person who looks OK when applying to university, on average, would look great if he had had equal opportunity his whole life. Affirm. action/reverse disrimination takes into account the adversity faced by the average member of the arbitrary group you fall into. Obviously, good intentions, but too many flaws.
No questions! American logic is flawless: I'm gonna discriminate against you now to undo in a moment what happened during years of our discriminating against you before, while coincidentally/indirectly discriminating on all other groups previously not discriminated against. Even though it looks like we've screwed it all to hell, we're hoping it'll all balance out. Yeah, it could happen.
|