Discrimination

[Woodruff]

What if there is a group that conducts bad activities? What if this group brings out the worst in people, and even makes them worse people overall? Would it be bad to discriminate against such a group?

Any group consists of individuals. Deal with the individuals as individuals and you have dealt with the group.

It's fine to deal with groups as groups too. I mean, if the group specifically advertises itself as having a set of beliefs and or proponents of a certain actions. For example... if you see a bunch of skin-heads with swastika's hanging out, you know what they (as a group) believe and what actions they (as a group) propose. It's perfectly appropriate to take advance action with using your knowledge of the group to determine how you approach the in-duh-viduals.

I'm not saying it's not fine in some circumstances. However, by and large it is to your disadvantage to do so. By dealing with the individuals, you have dealt with the group. Let's say, for instance, that a group has come to you for a job. It would make far more sense for you to hire/not hire them as individuals (since you have much more control over what you're getting), rather than the group as a whole. If the group as a whole refuses to be hired in such a manner, then that is their choice. Also, by doing so, you avoid all claims of illegal discrimination because you can show that you didn't react in a blanket manner.

But my point is that you do discriminate against individuals if they are a part of a bad group...

No, I disagree. By dealing with the individuals, you can do so without whatever stigma may be associated with the group they belong to. By doing this, then each individual will succeed or fail based on many things, not the least of which being whether they personally
ascribe to whatever it was that stigmatized you against the group. By doing this, you are dealing with the group (based on the presumption that largely the individuals would be rejected for the stigmata) while dealing completely fairly with the individuals (their membership in the group being rendered irrelevant).

[john9blue]

Okay. I think we can agree that in an ideal world, everyone is judged by their own merits only, and not by what group they belong to. What I'm saying here is that discrimination against groups, used properly, is a good and effective way to "know somebody" better, in a world where we can't possibly know others completely. Your way of judging people entirely individually is nice but sometimes impractical.

[Woodruff]

Okay. I think we can agree that in an ideal world, everyone is judged by their own merits only, and not by what group they belong to. What I'm saying here is that discrimination against groups, used properly, is a good and effective way to "know somebody" better, in a world where we can't possibly know others completely. Your way of judging people entirely individually is nice but sometimes impractical.

I could be mistaken, because I'm saying this off-the-cuff...but I can't think of any times off-hand when I personally would have found it important enough to bother with and still found it more practical to judge someone by the group they belonged to rather than as an individual. Perhaps you can give me an example of when this might be the case?

[jimboston]

I could be mistaken, because I'm saying this off-the-cuff...but I can't think of any times off-hand when I personally would have found it important enough to bother with and still found it more practical to judge someone by the group they belonged to rather than as an individual. Perhaps you can give me an example of when this might be the case?

I was once in a bar with my wife (who is not white) when a group of guys walked in who looked like skinheads to me. Bald or buzz-cut, leather, some patches and tatoos that looked like WW2 Era German Military symbols. I don't think I saw any swastikas... but other stuff.

Nothing came of it... we were with a small group and were bar hopping, so we weren't there long.

That said I was "on guard" and more aware of my surroundings and situation than normal.

I didn't take any actions... but I still think my awareness of the situation was appropriate.

(I always am 'aware' of my situation and surroundings when I go to public places like bars, clubs, sporting events, etc. You never know what can happen, and this awareness has saved trouble. That said... this time I was 'hyper-aware'. None of the men in the group I was with are 'fighters'... so I suspected I would not have much backup if shit hit the fan. I had my first 3-4 moves planned.)

[Woodruff]

I could be mistaken, because I'm saying this off-the-cuff...but I can't think of any times off-hand when I personally would have found it important enough to bother with and still found it more practical to judge someone by the group they belonged to rather than as an individual. Perhaps you can give me an example of when this might be the case?

I was once in a bar with my wife (who is not white) when a group of guys walked in who looked like skinheads to me. Bald or buzz-cut, leather, some patches and tatoos that looked like WW2 Era German Military symbols. I don't think I saw any swastikas... but other stuff.

Nothing came of it... we were with a small group and were bar hopping, so we weren't there long.

That said I was "on guard" and more aware of my surroundings and situation than normal.

I didn't take any actions... but I still think my awareness of the situation was appropriate.

Sure, I wouldn't argue with that at all. And while I suppose that does fall under the heading of "discrimination" in that you wouldn't have felt as uncomfortable as you did with some other groups coming into the bar, to me the lack of ACTION is what is important here. You didn't feel the need to act, and so while you were "discriminating in your tastes" (if you will), you weren't actively discriminating against them. I don't know if that makes sense, but hopefully it came across. Your example is a good one of a situation I haven't encountered (I don't drink, so unless I'm a designated driver, I'm not there), though.