[dahwolf]

And yet so-called "reverse discrimination" is widespread, normalized and even celebrated. Hate towards all men, all white people, specifically white men, straight people, "cis" people, old people, neuro-typical people, able-bodied people.

The progressive narrative is that this type of discrimination doesn't count because these people are magically privileged and powerful. Letting this go completely unchecked is what is fueling a new rise in "traditional" types of discrimination. It's hate fueling more hate.

If you believe in the rights of individuals, it should be based on first principles. All individuals, not just the ones you happen to like.

[atoav]

> If you believe in the rights of individuals, it should be based on first principles. All individuals, not just the ones you happen to like.

You seem to be implying a lot about my political views here. That implication says more about you than it says about me. Growing up in a (bi-)polarized culture must be a pain.

I don't think men should be discriminated against just because they are men (and I am biased, I am a man).

[dahwolf]

I was just objecting to the idea that being against discrimination seems like a no-brainer. It isn't because the status quo widely allows it, if only it's the correct type.

[atoav]

The thing with discrimination is that the frequency with which it appears is a crucial parameter in the harm it does to people (and we are interested in preventing that harm).

So if I get catcalled as a guy once in 3 years it has a different impact than a girl getting catcalled twice a day.

If someone discriminates me for my white skin once or twice, while I have profited from it my whole life, this is od course wrong, but it won't hurt my prospect in life. If I had a dark skin the racism would be a daily occurance and something that seriously impacts my prospect in life.

So if the actual impact in reality differs, we can also treat those things differently in policy, don't you think?