Who else does not agree with the term: "reverse discrimination"?

Question

It implies that there are certain groups: religious, ethnic, gender, etc. that are not capable of discrimination, and that's not true, we all discriminate in one way or another regardless of who or what we are a part of. Or am I wrong? If you think I'm wrong please explain why. (And this is not an angry question by the way it's just something i've been thinking about.)

Answer 1

You are right, it does imply that discrimination only goes in one direction....but I generally don't oppose the term because the person I'm talking to may not see the distinction.

Answer 2

OK, first off: I'm a white, middle-aged male. So I belong to the category of people who for a very long time were the primary discriminators (and in many cases still are). Unfortunately...because I try very hard myself NOT to.

"Reverse discrimination" is usually a term used by white, middle-aged males who claim that programs intended to end discrimination (such as affirmative action) have led to white, middle-aged males being discriminated against. Which is complete horse doo-doo. There is still considerable bias (in the US at least) for jobs, education, and opportunity for white, middle-aged males. Despite some "leveling of the playing field," it's still easier for me to do many things than it would be for, say, a black man my same age and with my same education. Or a woman the same age and education, who nationwide would earn about 20% less than I do just because she's a woman. Sorry, there's no reverse discrimination -- it's a gripe by former oppressors that they can't oppress quite as easily as they used to, and they're unhappy about it.

I look forward to the day when all opportunities in the US are based on merit alone, and nothing else. Until that happens, however, I have no problem giving a little extra help to those who have historically been discriminated against.

Answer 3

It's a stupid term. Discrimination is still discrimination. Doesn't matter who is doing the discriminating and who's being discriminated against. However, I would disagree that it implies that there are certain groups that are not capable of discrmination. It just implies that groups that have traditionally been discriminated against in the past (and still are) are now discriminating back. But I still think it's a stupid term.

Answer 4

No, it doesn't mean that they are not capable, quite the opposite. I thought, reverse discrimination was a minority hating/unequally treating a majority person. BUT you also just brought up the fact in my head that; reverse discrimination should be like giving/doing something nice to a minority (the reverse of discrimination). I think we all are discriminating in some fashion...I mean you like only certain foods, like certain personalities, etc, etc. I think any type of person can discriminate any type of person, even without really hating them. I mean think about it....think of ten far different types of people on a bus, then who would you sit next to?? I bet it would be someone closest to your own identity, the rest you are discriminating against in your comfort zone.

Answer 5

you're creating an outstanding element yet I see the time period extra which signifies that the those who were the initial racists are literally very nearly victimised by technique of the gadget it truly is condemning racism. (possibly it truly is in difficulty-free words justice) This in the same thanks to which "Political Correctness" is basically forcing human beings to lie and act in a way opposite to their authentic sense of accurate and incorrect.

Answer 6

You're right. Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter whether it's against a majority or a minority.

Answer 7

discrimination is discrimination wie der Fuhrer ist der Fuhrer

Answer 8

The US Supreme Court doesn't agree with it.They have NEVER accepted any cases that came before them!!

Answer 9

Racism is racism, no matter what color you paint it.