[slowmovintarget]

Thomas Sowell breaks down discrimination into far more useful categories.

> At a minimum, we need to know what we ourselves mean when we use a word like "discrimination," especially since it has conflicting meanings. The broader meaning--an ability to discern differences in the qualities of people and things, and choosing accordingly--can be called Discrimination I. The narrower, but more commonly used, meaning--treating people negatively, based on arbitrary aversions or animosities to individuals of a particular race or sex, for example--can be called Discrimination II, the kind of discrimination that has led to anti-discrimination laws and policies.

He goes on to break Discrimination I down into two subcategories, A and B.

Type Ia: "The ideal, and more costly, variation is seeking and paying the cost for information that would permit judging each individual as an individual, regardless of the group from which that individual comes."

Type Ib: "In other cases, where such information is too costly to be worth it, individuals may be judged by empirical evidence on the group they are part of."

An example of type Ib is judging a person's ability to pay back a mortgage loan based on their income.

[lumb63]

What work is this from? I’ve been meaning to read some of Sowell’s, and this sounds fascinating.

[pjscott]

That's from the book "Discrimination and Disparities".

[slowmovintarget]

Yes, and it's an excellent read.

[Connor_Creegan]

These are good distinctions. But I think maybe the central question or line of questioning I was driving at was this: what is it that makes some given discriminatory judgment borne of animosity or pure arbitration without reason? How could we even consistently determine something like that? Even about ourselves? If it must be borne of explicable reasons, to whom must we justify ourselves with these reasons?

Personally, instead of dealing with this litany of issues I'd rather do what I normally do and just lol at people who charge me with waaaacism for whatever bizarre reason they happen to concoct today.

[paulryanrogers]

> I'd rather do what I normally do and just lol at people who charge me with waaaacism for whatever bizarre reason they happen to concoct today.

So apathy? Perhaps a reasonable strategy if others are objectively being irrational. Being a part of the majority demographic, especially one with outsized wealth and opportunity, though could make apathy more dangerous if the cost is systematically harming all the others.

[Connor_Creegan]

You're talking about the "majority demographic" like they're some kind of parental figure. Like they have some kind of, uh, burden or something. No matter. By refusing to engage people who wouldn't even dream of extending their scrutiny of my theorized unconscious "biases" to themselves, I am doing more to advance the cause of muhnorities than ten Martin Luther Kings combined. I am ousting myself - a racist - from their community! What could be better than that?

[paulryanrogers]

Are these slurred spellings supposed to communicate something constructive about the most vocal of the disgruntled, out groups?

MLK Jr advocated desegregation at a critical moment in the civil rights era. How is your personal segregation (and praise thereof) benefitting those neighbors who are unlike you?

[Connor_Creegan]

Because if my instincts cannot be altered to the point of having "neutral" heuristic judgment (again, whatever the heck that is even supposed to entail and even supposing that that is an ideal) then it is literally a benefit to their community if I am not regularly among them. My presence among them would necessarily be parasitic (regardless of my intentions, because we are talking about inflicting harm unconsciously). That is, so long as I am otherwise giving to their community as much as anyone else in that community.

Even though I don't think it is necessary to make an appeal to the destiny of an ethnic minority, I would nevertheless maintain that Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision and really the whole paradigm of "civil rights" beginning with the Fourteenth Amendment was and has been objectively bad for blacks in America considered collectively. We romanticize decisions like Brown vs. Board and the forced integration that came thereafter because of cherry-picked pictures of well-to-do white ladies screaming at a little black girl in Little Rock, but the fact of the matter was that most black parents wanted their children to attend all-black schools, and these schools basically went out of existence and many black teachers were left without jobs because they couldn't get hired at the integrated schools that stayed open that were by-and-large white-administrated. Of course, the civil rights apologist would say that this was because federal government had not yet gone far enough, but the federal government is necessarily slow and there is little incentive for a holistic program of forced integration on behalf of the executive branch. But there is just enough incentive to dish out these measures when it appeases some short term interest a particular critical mass, and this kind of high(center)-low(periphery) cooperation against the middle(subsidiary) is quite commonplace throughout Western history. The fact of the matter is that the history of civil rights in America is a sequence of not-having-gone-far-enough-yet that stretches to nowhere. This is why I prefer the Malcolm X approach, despite some of his own flaws. Blacks do not have a position of national sovereignty. They have a position of being dispersed into the urban areas of major cities and integrated (often initially by force of higher power) into what were originally WASP institutions. Their dependencies on white institutions is what has utterly screwed them for decades now.