Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

OK, it's not my words, but here is the first sentence from the Wikipedia page, which seems to sum it up quite well.

Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, religion, physical attractiveness or sexual orientation.

So how do you interpret that ?

I would tend to read that as saying that a necessary condition for negative comments to be discrimination is that they be "based on" an underlying animosity to the people.

I would look at it differently. Discrimination is, to edit the Wikipedia definition, making distinctions between people based on the groups to which they belong.

If you steal from me, a discriminatory person, I don't judge you to be a thief, but to be a black, Jewish or Republican (etc) thief, thus associating thievery with being black, Jewish or Republican. Tarring those entire communities with being thieves. It also says that there's something wrong with being black, Jewish or Republican.

The act of discrimination is not an act against the individual, but against the group(s) to which they belong. It goes without saying that what I have just described is wrong because it is unjustified.

[Good_Egg]

Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, religion, physical attractiveness or sexual orientation.

So how do you interpret that ?

I would tend to read that as saying that a necessary condition for negative comments to be discrimination is that they be "based on" an underlying animosity to the people.

I would look at it differently. Discrimination is, to edit the Wikipedia definition, making distinctions between people based on the groups to which they belong.

If you steal from me, a discriminatory person, I don't judge you to be a thief, but to be a black, Jewish or Republican (etc) thief, thus associating thievery with being black, Jewish or Republican. Tarring those entire communities with being thieves. It also says that there's something wrong with being black, Jewish or Republican.

I think what you're describing here is what Wikipedia calls a "prejudicial distinction". Treating a person differently because you have pre-judged them, based on their membership of some group.

Maybe I expressed it badly in using the term "animosity".
Are you saying that holding and acting on an underlying attitude that blacks/Jews/Republicans are likely to be more than averagely criminal/miserly/hard-hearted/whatever is discrimination, whether this prejudice involves feeling of animosity or not ?

It goes without saying that what I have just described is wrong because it is unjustified.

No, I don't think it does. A prejudice is justified if it is true. If a member of some group is statistically more likely to be criminal than the average person is, that seems like a valid reason for avoiding them...

But you've still not retracted your statement that one can discriminate accidentally, without holding a prejudiced attitude.

(In case it's not clear by now, I tend to think your anti-Israel position is not antisemitic, on the basis of my understanding of what discrimination is. But logically is antisemitic on the basis of your apparent view of discrimination. Which is why I'm pursuing this line of argument)

[Pattern-chaser]

I think what you're describing here is what Wikipedia calls a "prejudicial distinction". Treating a person differently because you have pre-judged them, based on their membership of some group.

Yes, I think that's right.

Are you saying that holding and acting on an underlying attitude that blacks/Jews/Republicans are likely to be more than averagely criminal/miserly/hard-hearted/whatever is discrimination, whether this prejudice involves feeling of animosity or not ?

Yes, I think so.

But you've still not retracted your statement that one can discriminate accidentally, without holding a prejudiced attitude.

I believe one could exhibit almost any attitude without meaning to. I.e. by accident; without deliberate intention; perhaps by misunderstanding, or simple confusion; perhaps even by coincidence? But if this is the case, is it really part of our discussion, or a simple mistake?

[Sy Borg]

The other way of weaselling out of the charge is to try to claim that you're biased against a nation (France? America?) without being biased against its people. That doesn't fly. French people have an attachment to France. The concept of "homeland" implies an emotional attachment (even though individuals' relationship with their home can vary). To be biased against France is to be biased against the French...

The people of France are France, as you say. And yet it still seems reasonable to distinguish the political player on the world's stage, that we call "France", from the emotionally-, linguistically-, culturally-, and historically-bound people who are French, and who live in France.

There are other views of this, too:

• France is traditionally a Christian country. But criticism of Christianity, or of Christians, is not criticism of France. Just as criticism of Judaism, or of Jews, is not criticism of Israel.
• France is traditionally populated by a white-skinned majority (although this is less so in modern times). But criticism of Caucasians is not criticism of France.
• France is traditionally populated by a French-speaking majority. But criticism of the French language is not criticism of France.
• France has a long history of cheese-making. But criticism of French cheese is not criticism of France.
• And so on...

In my experience, when most criricize a nation they're specifically referring to that nation's governmental policies (typically foreign policy) and/or laws. Not the citizenry, who often share disagreement with those policies and laws.

However, at present, the shapers of opinions - academics and journalists - appears to be considerably more ant-Semitic than the general public. Thus, they create an unconscious societal bias against Jews, by disproportionately highlighting problems with Israel's government while not doing the same for more egregious administrations that commit more harmful acts (which I've listed enough times on this thread not to need to again).

[Mo_reese]

I am new here so forgive me while I learn how to respond.
Sy Borg you stated, "However, at present, the shapers of opinions - academics and journalists - appears to be considerably more ant-Semitic than the general public." I don't know about the academics but the reporters (we have few journalists) for the corporate news are 100% behind Israel.
I am guessing you believe to be anti-Zionism is the same as being anti-Semitic. I don't believe that to be true and neither do a lot of Jewish people.
You continue to discount criticism of Israel if there isn't equal criticism of other genocides. We are seeing the anti-humanitarian acts of Israel first hand and they are bragging about their atrocities while we haven't seen that from other situations. Other cases of genocide do not lessen Israel's genocide.

[Sy Borg]

Mo, I note that you have not spoken out about Sudan yet you are clearly very passionate about Israel. Why? Because the media has lead you by the nose.

Every day there's another featured pity piece from the supposed "pro Israel press" about the plight of some small group of Palestinians, while five million are at risk of starvation in Sudan. You have to look that up, though. It's not plastered in front of your face every day like Israel and Palestine.

I am amazed that people can't see the lack of balance there, nor pick up the odd special focus on this particular conflict over all others. As soon as this started, Ukraine fell off the radar. Everything takes a back seat to Israel v Palestine. Why?

The universities from which journalists are emerging have shown significant anti-Semitism, as evidenced by the celebrations after the Hamas attack, and harassment and intimidation of Jewish students. The "We're not anti-Jewish, we're only anti-Zionist" lie has gotten old. It's not credible. Zionism is just Jewish nationalism, the belief that they should have their own country. If people are focused on opposing Zionism, then they are anti-Semitic. Likewise, if people present any nation's nationalism as inherently evil, then that's prejudiced too.

[Sculptor1]

Repeating false claims about beheaded babies and denying that the IDF tortured UNRWA officials to spread the lie that they contrinuted to the Oct7th attacks is antisemitic.
Supporting Isreal's aims in Gaza is antisemitic.
Denying the murders of the "Flour Massacre" is antisemitic.
Denying that Isreal is trying to starve Palestinians is antisemitic.
Denying that Isreal has destoryed schools, hospitals, universities, and the homes of a million people is antisemitic.
Denying that thousands of innocent children have been masacred; that IDF are not not only killing journalists, but everything from sheeep to goats to stop Palestinians eating and drinking.
Supporting Netanyahu and his insane zionists is antisemitic.
Traducing the millions of Jews that criticise Israel is antisemitic.

[Sculptor1]

I am new here so forgive me while I learn how to respond.
Sy Borg you stated, "However, at present, the shapers of opinions - academics and journalists - appears to be considerably more ant-Semitic than the general public." I don't know about the academics but the reporters (we have few journalists) for the corporate news are 100% behind Israel.
I am guessing you believe to be anti-Zionism is the same as being anti-Semitic. I don't believe that to be true and neither do a lot of Jewish people.
You continue to discount criticism of Israel if there isn't equal criticism of other genocides. We are seeing the anti-humanitarian acts of Israel first hand and they are bragging about their atrocities while we haven't seen that from other situations. Other cases of genocide do not lessen Israel's genocide.

Sy Borg seems to be alone on the Forum with this issue. She refuses to state here radical zionism, or her ethnicity.
I'm guessing she is not Arabic.
It's clear to anyone paying attention that the establishment and politicians are at odds with the people, most of whom are demanding a ceasefire.
US and UK politicians are being paid directly and indirectly by Israel.

[Pattern-chaser]

Every day there's another featured pity piece from the supposed "pro Israel press" about the plight of some small group of Palestinians...

Here in the UK, our newspapers (the "press") and TV are solidly pro-Israel, as our elected leaders are. It's only on social media, and on our streets, that any support for the plight of the Palestinian people becomes evident. The protests reflect only that the voice of the 'common' people is not being reported, and so it's not being heard. This may all be different in other countries. Any comments from any of those other countries?

[Mo_reese]

What it looks like to me is that the conflict in Gaza is shining a light on the global class war. In the US the Capital Class appear to all have sided with the strong authoritarian Israeli government against people they view as in a lower class. It is important to note that when asked almost 100% of Congress jumped to support Israel and even went so far as to declare that those that disagree are anti-Semitic. Pelosi wants to arrest anyone that protests against Israel. Bipartisanship is dangerous.

As far as “journalists” there are very few true journalist in the corporate media which at first came out 100% in favor of Israel. But people with the aid of social media and independent media are starting to doubt the honesty of the corporate media so CNN has started to show some of the conflict but try to tone down the atrocities. One news person responded to the fact that Israel has killed 12,000 children by saying, “well at least they didn't rape anyone.” They NYT is having some trouble as their journalists (they may have some) have started to balk at pushing the pro-Israel narrative of their bosses.

It's obvious that social media is messing with the Capital Class's ability to control the message so look for them to try to shut down social media like banning TikTok.

Israel is committing many crimes against humanity and proud of it and they are supported by the Capital Class while the 99% Class is against it.

[Sy Borg]

What it looks like to me is that the conflict in Gaza is shining a light on the global class war. In the US the Capital Class appear to all have sided with the strong authoritarian Israeli government against people they view as in a lower class. It is important to note that when asked almost 100% of Congress jumped to support Israel and even went so far as to declare that those that disagree are anti-Semitic. Pelosi wants to arrest anyone that protests against Israel. Bipartisanship is dangerous.

I like Marxism the way I like toothaches. There is no global class war. We can see how grounded Marx's ideas by the fact that every single nation that adopts Marxism becomes a dictatorship, and then becomes ever more dysfuntional.

There are competing blocs in the world, not a global Oppressors vs The Oppressed, the latter being an outdated Marxist fantasy. At this stage, the eastern bloc is winning the propaganda war because half of the western bloc is inherently anti-west.

Yes, the US govt is Israel's main supporter. Without the US's support, Israel would have been destroyed by Arabs decades ago. Remember that Jews were scoured from all surrounding Arab nations, and then Hitler (presumably a force for the Oppressed, fighting the Jewish Oppressor) decided to finish the clean up job.

As far as “journalists” there are very few true journalist in the corporate media which at first came out 100% in favor of Israel. But people with the aid of social media and independent media are starting to doubt the honesty of the corporate media so CNN has started to show some of the conflict but try to tone down the atrocities. One news person responded to the fact that Israel has killed 12,000 children by saying, “well at least they didn't rape anyone.” They NYT is having some trouble as their journalists (they may have some) have started to balk at pushing the pro-Israel narrative of their bosses.

It's obvious that social media is messing with the Capital Class's ability to control the message so look for them to try to shut down social media like banning TikTok.

Israel is committing many crimes against humanity and proud of it and they are supported by the Capital Class while the 99% Class is against it.

What I see on my news feed are new, highlighted pity pieces about suffering Palestinian individuals and small groups. Every day. Or our Foreign Minister expressing concern. At first she parroted the line she had been given. Since then, every comment has been aimed towards a ceasefire - that would allow Hamas to regroup and continue the fight.

Pity you show zero concern for the longstanding crimes against humanity committed by Russia, China, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, CAE, DRC, Nigeria, North Korea, Turkmenistan ... the list goes on. Almost no one knows about the crimes against humanity by or within many of these countries, and usually they had no idea it was happening.

Yet they know ALL about Israel's crimes. Why is that? Bias. Media bias. Societal biases. All with anti-Semitism at their core. Israel has the right to defend itself, despite what Marxists will tell you.

[Sy Borg]

Every day there's another featured pity piece from the supposed "pro Israel press" about the plight of some small group of Palestinians...

Here in the UK, our newspapers (the "press") and TV are solidly pro-Israel, as our elected leaders are. It's only on social media, and on our streets, that any support for the plight of the Palestinian people becomes evident. The protests reflect only that the voice of the 'common' people is not being reported, and so it's not being heard. This may all be different in other countries. Any comments from any of those other countries?

Every day our articles are either:

1) something sad in Palestine

2) sad Palestinian children

3) Our foreign minister calling:
a) for a ceasefire
b) to give more funding to Palestine
c) expressing concern.

And zero pieces covering other humanitarian crises. The hypocrisy of it all is astonishing.

[Sculptor1]

Every day there's another featured pity piece from the supposed "pro Israel press" about the plight of some small group of Palestinians...

Here in the UK, our newspapers (the "press") and TV are solidly pro-Israel, as our elected leaders are. It's only on social media, and on our streets, that any support for the plight of the Palestinian people becomes evident. The protests reflect only that the voice of the 'common' people is not being reported, and so it's not being heard. This may all be different in other countries. Any comments from any of those other countries?

Every day our articles are either:

1) something sad in Palestine

2) sad Palestinian children

3) Our foreign minister calling:
a) for a ceasefire
b) to give more funding to Palestine
c) expressing concern.

And zero pieces covering other humanitarian crises. The hypocrisy of it all is astonishing.

That's because there is a genocide in progress and out media are ignoring it.

[Sy Borg]

If, by "ignoring", you mean highlighting suffering Palestinians every day or Penny Wong wringing her hands about it ...

Never mind all the other genocides that the media really is ignoring. Only one genocide matter, so it seems. In the western media, one Palestinian life appears to be worth about 10,000 Sudanese lives.

[Sculptor1]

If, by "ignoring", you mean highlighting suffering Palestinians every day or Penny Wong wringing her hands about it ...

Never mind all the other genocides that the media really is ignoring. Only one genocide matter, so it seems. In the western media, one Palestinian life appears to be worth about 10,000 Sudanese lives.

Whataboutery