Ending 'discrimination' results in Totalitarianism

[stu2002]

Posted: August 16, 2010
10:17 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The existence of discrimination or bias is one of the most sensitive subjects in our multicultural society. There are some in the political class, especially liberals, who believe the government should strive to create a society in which there is no discrimination.

At first glance, this would seem to be a noble objective. Discrimination is associated with terrible things like slavery, Jim Crow laws, hate crimes, and even the Holocaust. Every sane person is against these things. However, the political movement to eliminate nearly all forms of discrimination has itself become a form of totalitarianism. Here are some reasons why.

In its most basic form, discrimination is simply freedom of choice by an individual or group. Any expression of preference for one person or thing over another is a form of discrimination. The only way completely to eliminate discrimination would be to take away the rights of people to make choices.


This obviously is not consistent with living in a free society. Politicians and the courts have tried to dance around this conflict between freedom and anti-discrimination by making choices for people about which forms of discriminate are allowed and which are not allowed, but the list of choices (or discrimination) that is not allowed keeps getting longer.

That list of government-prohibited forms of discrimination now includes race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, and in some cases even weight. The government and many people believe these are inappropriate forms of discrimination, and in most cases they are.

However, there are many situations in which even these prohibited forms of discrimination may be entirely appropriate. Is it really a good idea for a jockey to be fat? Or for a lifeguard to be 80 years old? Or for a firefighter to be a paraplegic? Or for a Catholic to be rabbi? Or for a man to counsel young women who have just been sexually assaulted? Or for a lesbian to be a Muslim cleric? Or for a white man to be president of the NAACP?

These may be extreme examples, but the point is that in a free society, no matter what the government tries to do, people still need to make choices about what they believe is right and wrong. Trying to take those rights away from people leads the government to be more and more involved and ultimately in control of private life. This is the definition of totalitarianism.

(Column continues below)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=191941

[jmdrake]

Once again people put the cart before the horse on this issue. Statism causes totalitarianism. The south wasn't "free" back when it was "free to discriminate". And federal totalitarianism culminated in 1942 with FDR totally undermining states rights through the Supreme Court rubber stamping the New Deal. Southern states were happy to go along with this because they were happy to take the government "free money".

[awake]

Ending all discrimination would lead to the government deciding every choice an individual could ever make. The word totalitarian some how does not fit to describe that level of vegetative existence.

[clarity]

Or for a white man to be president of the NAACP?

The NAACP didn't have a black president until 1975, all the previous ones were Jewish.

[jmdrake]

The NAACP didn't have a black president until 1975, all the previous ones were Jewish.

I had to look that one up. I always thought DuBois was the first president of the NAACP. Turns out he wasn't. First president is on the far left (no pun intended). DuBois didn't even have full freedom to write what he wanted as his position as editor.

http://www.roberttempleton.com/LestWeForget/index.html
http://www.roberttempleton.com/images/arts/NAACP.jpg

Moorfield Storey, lawyer and author, was born in Massachusetts in 1845 and studied at Harvard College, Harvard Law School, and in law offices. He practiced law in Boston, where he was a reformer and a strong supporter of civil rights. He wrote a number of books and pamphlets including Legal Aspects of the Negro Question and Problems of Today, in which he discussed race prejudice. He was among the sixty prominent Americans who responded to the call of Mary White Ovington to meet in February 1909, on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, to protest the recent frightening riot in Springfield, Illinois, and the many decades of such oppressive acts of terror as burnings and lynchings. He became the first national president of the NAACP.
Oil, about 1984, 30 x 50 inches framed

Mary White Ovington, reformer and the spirit behind that meeting, was born in Brooklyn in 1865, where she grew up in an atmosphere of abolitionism and women's rights. She attended Packer Collegiate Institute there before going to Radcliffe College for two years. She worked in settlement houses and came to know the depth of the problems of the blacks. In 1911, she published her 1904 study Half a Man: The Status of the Negro. By that time, she had seen her 1909 meeting evolve into the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. For more than forty years she served as board member, executive secretary, and chairman, and served as conciliator among the various factions that threatened to destroy the movement. Among her books was the autobiographical The Walls Came Tumbling Down.

William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, scholar and activist, was born in western Massachusetts in 1868. He attended local schools where he was usually the only black. He went off to Fisk University, graduated, and enrolled at Harvard College as a junior. He stayed on through his doctorate in 1895. He taught at the University of Pennsylvania while doing the research for his magisterial Philadelphia Negro (1899). He taught at Atlanta University and became the ideological rival to Booker T. Washington upon the publication of his Souls of Black Folk. He was the first NAACP director of research and publications and he founded Crisis of which he was editor for two dozen years. He resigned when his independence as editor was threatened. He taught at Atlanta, returned to the NAACP for a stormy few years, and left again. He died as he had lived, in controversy.

[RedStripe]

Posted: August 16, 2010
10:17 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The existence of discrimination or bias is one of the most sensitive subjects in our multicultural society. There are some in the political class, especially liberals, who believe the government should strive to create a society in which there is no discrimination.

At first glance, this would seem to be a noble objective. Discrimination is associated with terrible things like slavery, Jim Crow laws, hate crimes, and even the Holocaust. Every sane person is against these things. However, the political movement to eliminate nearly all forms of discrimination has itself become a form of totalitarianism. Here are some reasons why.

In its most basic form, discrimination is simply freedom of choice by an individual or group. Any expression of preference for one person or thing over another is a form of discrimination. The only way completely to eliminate discrimination would be to take away the rights of people to make choices.


This obviously is not consistent with living in a free society. Politicians and the courts have tried to dance around this conflict between freedom and anti-discrimination by making choices for people about which forms of discriminate are allowed and which are not allowed, but the list of choices (or discrimination) that is not allowed keeps getting longer.

That list of government-prohibited forms of discrimination now includes race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, and in some cases even weight. The government and many people believe these are inappropriate forms of discrimination, and in most cases they are.

However, there are many situations in which even these prohibited forms of discrimination may be entirely appropriate. Is it really a good idea for a jockey to be fat? Or for a lifeguard to be 80 years old? Or for a firefighter to be a paraplegic? Or for a Catholic to be rabbi? Or for a man to counsel young women who have just been sexually assaulted? Or for a lesbian to be a Muslim cleric? Or for a white man to be president of the NAACP?

These may be extreme examples, but the point is that in a free society, no matter what the government tries to do, people still need to make choices about what they believe is right and wrong. Trying to take those rights away from people leads the government to be more and more involved and ultimately in control of private life. This is the definition of totalitarianism.

(Column continues below)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=191941

The situations where the author points out that discrimination may be appropriate are generally recognize as such by the laws/courts.

Yes, it would be totalitarian if the government attempted to eliminate ALL discrimination, but no one is proposing that for precisely that reason. This is just one of those issues that going to the extreme either way is clearly going to produce an outcome that is intolerable.

[jmdrake]

Or for a man to counsel young women who have just been sexually assaulted?

Actually men do counsel young women who have just been sexually assaulted. Another fail by WND.

[wizardwatson]

Posted: August 16, 2010
10:17 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The existence of discrimination or bias is one of the most sensitive subjects in our multicultural society. There are some in the political class, especially liberals, who believe the government should strive to create a society in which there is no discrimination.

At first glance, this would seem to be a noble objective. Discrimination is associated with terrible things like slavery, Jim Crow laws, hate crimes, and even the Holocaust. Every sane person is against these things. However, the political movement to eliminate nearly all forms of discrimination has itself become a form of totalitarianism. Here are some reasons why.

In its most basic form, discrimination is simply freedom of choice by an individual or group. Any expression of preference for one person or thing over another is a form of discrimination. The only way completely to eliminate discrimination would be to take away the rights of people to make choices.


This obviously is not consistent with living in a free society. Politicians and the courts have tried to dance around this conflict between freedom and anti-discrimination by making choices for people about which forms of discriminate are allowed and which are not allowed, but the list of choices (or discrimination) that is not allowed keeps getting longer.

That list of government-prohibited forms of discrimination now includes race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, and in some cases even weight. The government and many people believe these are inappropriate forms of discrimination, and in most cases they are.

However, there are many situations in which even these prohibited forms of discrimination may be entirely appropriate. Is it really a good idea for a jockey to be fat? Or for a lifeguard to be 80 years old? Or for a firefighter to be a paraplegic? Or for a Catholic to be rabbi? Or for a man to counsel young women who have just been sexually assaulted? Or for a lesbian to be a Muslim cleric? Or for a white man to be president of the NAACP?

These may be extreme examples, but the point is that in a free society, no matter what the government tries to do, people still need to make choices about what they believe is right and wrong. Trying to take those rights away from people leads the government to be more and more involved and ultimately in control of private life. This is the definition of totalitarianism.

(Column continues below)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=191941

Oh, the tangled webs we weave.

Condensed version of article: Discrimination has a negative connotation but does not by definition refer to negative behavior.

It's obvious the article is an attack on the "collectivized" liberal worldview. But a more honest assessment of a liberals view towards "discrimination" would be to say that "liberals" feel the government should pass laws that end discrimination which is based on negative prejudice rooted in ignorance. Futile in my opinion, but more accurate than this article tries to assert.

[Standing Like A Rock]

Oh, the tangled webs we weave.

Condensed version of article: Discrimination has a negative connotation but does not by definition refer to negative behavior.

It's obvious the article is an attack on the "collectivized" liberal worldview. But a more honest assessment of a liberals view towards "discrimination" would be to say that "liberals" feel the government should pass laws that end discrimination which is based on negative prejudice rooted in ignorance. Futile in my opinion, but more accurate than this article tries to assert.

Nicely articulated.

[Zippyjuan]

So if you are opposed to totalitarianism you should discrinimate against as many people as possible? People repressing each other is better than the government repressing you? Both are wrong. It is a false choise to have to choose between the two.

"If I am not allowed to discrinimate it will be totalitarianism!" Not an excuse to oppress or discriminate against anybody.