Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.

  • @bostonbananarama
    link
    11 year ago

    By that definition, every choice is discrimination because any criteria you set necessarily excludes so other group.

    You keep pivoting to race as your analogy, but it doesn’t fit. Look at the scrutiny courts give to race versus sex or age. Laws based on race receive strict scrutiny, gender gets intermediate scrutiny, and age is judged with a rational basis scrutiny.

    So, yes, while discrimination can mean that, it certainly has a connotation that makes it a poor word choice. It is misleading as to what’s happening. Using age as a selection criteria is based on rational facts, selection based on race is based on hate. Poor analogy.

    • @beebarfbadger
      link
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      By that definition, every choice is discrimination because any criteria you set necessarily excludes so other group.

      Not quite. We got two factors here, one, the different treatment from other groups, yes. but the second factor - different treatment because of someone’s age - limits it to cases of different treatment due to age. It’s not age discrimination because someone else gets different treatment, it is age discrimination because age is the reason for that.

      And that’s why racism is an apt analogy, because that is one possible motivation for different treatment in someone’s mind, just like age can be another reason. The different levels of scrutiny do not touch that. These come into play because proving such motivations in court is difficult and needs quasi-tangible standards, but what’s being proved is that a factor (such as age, race, gender, etc) IS the main motivation in a case.

      • @bostonbananarama
        link
        11 year ago

        There are two definitions for discriminate:

        1. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people
        1. recognize a distinction; differentiate

        Either considering Biden’s age isn’t discrimination because it isn’t unjust, because those factors are an important consideration; or every choice is discrimination because we’re using the differentiate definition. Personally, I believe the second definition is useless and doesn’t convey the obvious connotation of discriminate.

        Race is a terrible analogy for the same reason it receives strict scrutiny, there are no readily apparent reasons to use race as a determining factor. Age is not remotely in the same ball park, because there are numerous reasons to consider age. The piece you’re missing is that age can be used as the reason for disparate treatment and be within the bounds of the law. Race can…almost…never be. (Can’t think of anything, or any case law that upheld a race criterion, but maybe it’s possible).

        • @beebarfbadger
          link
          11 year ago

          We were in the legal definition of the term age discrimination, and what i said above is what’s relevant there.

          Race is a terrible analogy

          But both can be reasons for different treatment and in that one particular feature, they are the same, thus the sound analogy.

          Age discrimination (in a legal sense) is different treatment because one particular feature (age); racist discrimination is a different treatment because of a particular feature (race) as well.

          In that they are the same, the different degrees of legality of both were not in question here.

          • @bostonbananarama
            link
            11 year ago

            But both can be reasons for different treatment and in that one particular feature, they are the same, thus the sound analogy.

            No, sorry, it remains terrible. In the same way stealing a candy bar and murder aren’t analogous simply because they’re both illegal. Although, at least in that analogy both would always be illegal. In your analogy, disparate treatment based on age can often be valid and permissible, well disparate treatment on race can never be.

            • @beebarfbadger
              link
              11 year ago

              Age: can be a reason? Yes. Race: can be a reason? Yes.

              In their can-it-be-a-reason property, they are identical - both can be reasons.

              I honestly don’t care whether they are good reasons or bad reasons each, you’re mostly right in that discussion, but that is not part of this discussion.

              • @bostonbananarama
                link
                11 year ago

                Smell: yes. Height: yes. Hair style: yes. Food choice: yes. Suit color: yes. Religion: yes. Party: yes. Education: yes. Speaking style: yes. Gender: yes. Handedness: yes. Weight: yes. Place of birth: yes. Sports team affiliation: yes. Personality: yes. Previous employment: yes. Name: yes. Ethnicity: yes.

                ^^^ They all fit as well as yours, since they can-be-a-resson. TERRIBLE ANALOGY! The only connection is so broad that a thousand other things can apply in the same way.

                • @beebarfbadger
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  Okay, let’s go through the checklist:

                  Is age a possible criterion one can base the decision to treat someone differently on? Yes. Is this true for race? Also true. One can conceivably treat others differently due to their race.

                  Do such different treatments have specific names? Yes, age discrimination in one case, racism in the other.

                  Are there laws in place that forbid treating others differently due to their age in certain contexts? Yes, in the workplace for example, that is illegal. Are there laws in place that make treating others differently due to their race illegal? Yes, there are multiple contexts, where that is illegal.

                  Are there contexts where one can definitely make decisions based on race? Yes, absolutely - for example one can choose to not vote for a candidate due to their race (it’s an absolutely irrational dick move, but no authority will sanction that decision). Can one consider age a disqualifying factor in certain decisions like for example voting, dating, etc too? Yes absolutely.

                  I don’t see how that analogy is lacking in any way, except that the range of laws declaring each illegal differs, but you may not find another factor that has the exact same range of situations covered. What would you consider a better analogy that ticks all these boxes?

                  • @bostonbananarama
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    I don’t see how that analogy is lacking in any way

                    That’s your problem. I can explain it to you, but I can’t make you understand it. The closer the analogy tracks to the original statement the better the analogy. The fact that race and age are two criterion that a decision can be based is extremely weak. To point this out I named a dozen or more things that you could base a decision on.

                    I’ve never stated that those aren’t two things you can base a decision on, but you continue to explain that point over and over again anyway. Race doesn’t track closely enough to age, an example of that is that age can often be a permissible reason to differentiate, but race never is. Ergo, bad analogy.