[faeriechangling]

You know I've been wondering this an awful lot myself and have thought about discrimination WITHOUT the qualifier and I find it enlightening because if you use the qualifier you just answer a question with a question - what is "unjust" or "unwarranted"

People look at me funny when I use the term broadly and society is unapologetically extremely discriminatory against people who are "stupid" to the point that people will get outraged if a smart person doesn't get what they DESERVE, say admission into an elite university, when they are so far above the unwashed masses. Take the Asian student taking his case about discrimination to the Supreme Court about not getting into school with a GPA over 5, is that his school SHOULD have essentially discriminated in his favour due to his grades, and SHOULDN'T have discriminated against him due to his race. Grade based discrimination is legitimate, race based discrimination is not.

"Anti-discrimination" is more like "Anti-unwarranted-discrimination" or "anti-unjust-discrimination", people are generally supportive of discrimination, just so long as it isn't unjustified. Racial discrimination is terrible for race relations, gender discrimination is bad for gender equality, discrimination against different nationalities causes wars, discrimination against transgender people reduces mental health, so this is BAD discrimination. Discrimination by grades means more people end up productive members of society so this is GOOD discrimination. Also discriminating against those who discriminate inappropriately is very important, so as to ensure everybody is discriminating in the correct manner.