Today's topic will be ... discrimination. Human Discrimination. Or (for some of you,) racism, sexism, preferencism (I coined that here, remember where you heard it first,) nationalism, ethnism, ***ism.
Either way, discrimination is not actually a political issue. Rather, it is an issue related to how we recognize and distinguish that which is among us. How is it different? Can I use it? Can I eat (use) it? Have I seen this before? Is it safe for me? Does it threaten me? How do I compare to it? Is it actually what it seems to be? Yada, yada, yada.
![[ white chess peices pic ]](images/white_chess_pieces.jpg)
- The act of making or perceiving a difference.
- The quality or power of finely distinguishing.
- Responding differently to things which are different.
Thus, in chemistry, when a carbon atom interacts with an oxygen atom under a similar set of circumstances differently than it would interact with a hydrogen atom, that is referred to as discrimination. In nuclear physics, when a proton interacts with a neutron under a similar set of circumstances differently than it would interact with another proton, that is referred to as discrimination.
Not only do different things respond to things which are different differently, they also respond to things which are similarly different similarly. Thus, in chemistry, when a carbon atom interacts with an oxygen atom, under the exact same set of circumstances another carbon atom will interact with another oxygen atom in the same way. Similarly in nuclear physics. Similarly in all aspects of interaction among All That Is, whether Living or Non-living.
Let's take the example of a Living Thing. Whether or not that Living Thing has a brain enabling cognitive thinking or not. It may have a working mind, like you do. Or, it could be a plant. Or, a bacteria. Now this Living Thing encounters "something else." What is it going to do next? It will respond. How will it respond? It will respond differently depending on what the "something else" is.
Without regard to whether it can make a cognitive-based decision or not, a response will happen. (Even if it is "no response", which is actually a response.) Since the Living Thing responds differently depending on what the "something else" is, the Living Thing discriminates.
Getting even closer to home, let's say that Living Thing is You. You encounter "something else." How will you respond? You will think about it (maybe) and then respond. You will make a decision based upon what you encounter, what you consider about it, what seems to make sense to you at the moment to do next. In working out what your decision would be, you discriminate.
- Cognitive Discrimination - what all Living Things do that have cognitive control over "what response they are going to make next."
- Instinctual Discrimination - how Living Things with a brain or neural system, but without cognitive control, "elect what they will do next."
- Genetically-driven Discrimination - how Living Things without a neural system "elect what they will do next."
- Chemical and Physical Chemical Discrimination - how those Things which are not Living (e.g. atoms, molecules, etc.) "elect what they will do next."
- And so on and so forth, all completely consistent with all of Natural Law which is never violated.
For the rest of this essay we will restrict ourself to Cognitive Discrimination carried out by the Living.
Pattern Recognition is often used by "Living Things that Learn" as part of the Cognitive Ensemble guiding their decisions of "how to respond or interpret" and "what to consider or do next".
→ ConserveLiberty has written a chapter about the Pattern Recognition Personality Filter earlier. ←Discrimination.
Human Discrimination
We will again dispense with "politically correct" (PC) messaging for this essay. Rather, ConserveLiberty does not post messaging that concerns itself with "political correctness (PC)." Or, synonymously, messaging that is concerned with the "feelings" of those who read the postings. We simply endeavor to use words that represent the Truth. We are Fact-oriented. That some may become uncomfortable is not our interest. It may be yours, but not ours. We are simply interested in communicating The Truth.
Out-of-the-Box (OTB) discussions lose their accuracy when encumbered by the censorship (e.g. required restatement) required by PC messaging. Which, to be clear, is why PC messaging is advocated. Requiring "PC messaging" is a means for debilitating opposing dialog.
The topic of Discrimination can generate discomfort for many people, regardless of their views on the subject. This is especially the result of the broadly directed Indoctrination effort regarding the use of the term "Discrimination" and the attractive narrative that has been wrapped around it. Thus, in the abstract, it is appropriate for illustrating:
- the development of Critical Thinking around a topic,
- the development of innovative (Out-of-the-Box) ways to view a topic factually so that more can be understood, and
- to illustrate how the innovator could be inferred to be Bat Shit Crazy (BSC) by those who cannot (or, will not) entertain the credibility of what the innovative thinking could possibly suggest.
Let's get back to a factual treatment of Human Discrimination.
![[ black chess piece pic ]](images/one_black_chess_piece_300.jpg)
It seems appropriate that I would first respond to that question by remarking, "It depends on what you mean by It". Since we have already insisted that this essay uses the term as defined above, then consider the following reply in that light.
Actually, ConserveLiberty is not focused on that question. The issue this essay is focusing on is how the topic is discussed. Under what "perspectives" or "narratives" or "circumstances" is the topic discussed? And, do those make rational and factual sense?
Why? Because we are focused on Critical Thinking.
The answer to the question, "Is it (discrimination) OK?" is NOT a fact.
Discrimination is so "normal," so "obvious," so "reasonable" a thing to do that it is more accurately (better) described as an ongoing process. Much like "breathing" is a normal, obvious, and reasonable thing to do. Is breathing OK? Even those who judge that "discrimination" is "Not OK" are actually guilty of discriminating among the types of behaviors that they judge to be "OK". In this case, "discrimination." Which is amusing. For some.
The better question might be to ask, "What types of discrimination are OK?" In this case, one would need to clarify what is meant by "OK." ConserveLiberty will address directly what "OK" means within this context.
"OK" means: "Are we using discrimination to enable us to make a reasoned decision such that we maximize a desired functional outcome?"
At this point, the reader may be losing patience. "Discrimination for a "reasoned decision" is not what we thought we'd be reading about!", you might the thinking. "We want to read about Racism, Gender Bias, etc., those sorts of Discriminations!"
OK, let's get to some of those. They are often regarded as "synonymous" with the term "discrimination". Which is unfortunate. To overuse the term "discrimination" as synonmous with racism, ethnicism, sexism, etc., is to confuse the legitimate meaning of the word "discrimination" with the often instinctive need to identify oneself as "superior" to another (for some arbitrary reason.) There is one thing that all these cases have in common - the conclusion by the ones identifying themselves as superior that they are justified in having power over those that are judged to be "inferior."
Thus, using just one example:
As ConserveLiberty defines It, Racism is not the result solely of Discrimination on the part of the racist. No more than racism is solely the result of Breathing on the part of the racist. When one elects to view another person from a racist perspective, at the moment they have made that election they have been discriminating (characterizing what the person looks like) and breathing (to stay alive.) Both at the same time. But neither is solely the cause of the racist perpective.Yes, comparative discrimination is employed in these cases of racism, sexism, ethnicism, age-ism, pick whichever identity-ism you'd like. All these targets of the ***ists need to be identified, and discrimination enables us to do just that. But the conclusions are arrived at with only one goal - the acquisition of power due to inferred superiority. And, the inference is often not made using rational thinking (logical, validation based, skeptically challenged reasoning) but rather is simply stated with an authoritative tone. Since many are influenced by authoritative rhetoric, and do not independently fact check it, often these types of statements are successful at indoctrinating quite a few people.
A much more causative drive that has led to the racism is not the drive to discriminate, but rather the drive to see one as superior over another. As having control over another. From there, the imagination takes over easily.
Imagination is not Fact-bound, and thus can lead one to any outlook they desire to have so long as being Fact-bound is not important. Ironically, one who is not Fact-bound can even imagine that they are, in fact, Fact-bound, when they believe it makes them feel better to regard themselves as Fact-bound. Even though they actually are not. Ah, the power of Imagination unbridled by Fact.
Such are humans!.
Racism, Sexism, Economic status-ism
In another very common (and overlooked, or dismissed) example:
Currently there is a dominant narrative in our society that authoritatively asserts that "Wealthy White Males" all share the common, default traits of "suspicious, exploitative, unfarely influential, and if only we knew more 'of the truth' about them ... criminal." Thus, "Wealthy White Males" are regarded unsympathetically, and are targetted as a source of as much wealth that can be assessed (taken) and redistributed from them as "the noble" can come up with reasons for doing it.The use of the "Wealthy White Male" was offered as an efficient example of discrimination based on race, gender, and economic-status, AND with the Power-and-Superiority Motivated Intention of equating those who can be described in that way as "inferior" without regard to merit.
We can comment (declare!) on the credibility of this narrative directly. For whatever reason (and those reasons are numerous and varied,) there is a lot of wealth in the "White Male" demographic that others want. Rather than trade something of value in order to acquire some of that wealth, many want simply to take it. So, they invent reasons that seem rhetorically convincing enough to take it, and then they try their best. To take it. Repeatedly. It is a "Take Power, and Feel Satisfied Taking It" motivation. Pretty much that's it, only. Really. The narratives that are spun don't suggest such a base intention. Rather, the narratives suggest much more nobel intentions. But alas, the action of taking "White Male Wealth" in order to "redistribute it" actually doesn't achieve the nobly positioned narratives. What they do achieve, however, is the taking of wealth and power, for the use by those who wanted more wealth and power.
Apparently, in the example above, it is "Not OK" to judge someone as inferior simply by their membership in:
- the race that describes them (racism) ... unless they are white.
- the gender that describes them (sexism) ... unless they are male.
- the economic class that describes them (classism) ... unless they are wealthy.
And the answer is "No!"
Let's clarify evaluation based on race, sex, class, or other descriptors further.
Is it reasonable, even factual, to use someone's apparent race to describe them? Should be. Why not? Identifying someone's race is a particularly potent way to distinguish them from others, especially if one is trying to find them within a group of people who are members of many different races. It narrows the candidates down considerably. Actually, if their race represents a minority of the members in a particular group, then the ease of finding the person you are looking for becomes even easier if the race that they are a member of is used in the description.
In reality, one's race is not an indicator of superiority or inferiority. It is an indicator of appearance.
Similarly, the same can be said of gender identification. And class identification. And, ethnicity, age, physicality (e.g. athletic, fat), description of handicap, and so on. All these are as essential to identifying who we are, what we look like, and various expectations that may be statistically associated with the group (so long as we understand that statistical likelihoods need to be verified at the individual level.)
It is extraordinary how many people, when judging my height, assume that I am or was a good basketball player! The reality? That assumption can be validated as FALSEIronically, it is those who are the most sensitive to referring to someone's race, for example, who are in fact the most racist. They will often deny it, because the narratives they are aligning with (indoctrinations) have them believing that they are not at all racist. Meaning, that they don't judge someone inferior because their race is different from their own. On the other hand, those same people are adamant about identifying someone who is factually of the negro race as "African-American" because (and they have overtly told me this, several times) they inform me that the term "negro" is demeaning.
If you believe that the label for someone's race (in this case, "negro") is demeaning, without regard to the merit of the specific person involved ... then you are most certainly racist. Period.
Similarly, if you are comfortable identifying someone's race simply as one of the many qualities that describe that person, then you are certainly not racist in that regard. At all. Period.
And again, the same can be said of gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and so on ad infinitum.