Thread by @EveKeneinan

“To discriminate” is merely to tell one thing from another. Discrimination is often good and necessary, especially in matters of competence and virtue.

We do not allow those without training or the incompetent or who malpractice to practice medicine. This is good discrimination.

“Non-discrimination” is a VIRTUE when it is a matter treating similar persons similarly and not differently on the basis of an IRRELEVANT CHARACTERISTIC such as skin color.

So “non-discrimination” is a good, because it falls under the virtue of justice.

However—and this is the essential point—there is no way for the state to mandate this virtue without significantly curtailing LIBERTY.

It can be done but MANDATING VIRTUE by law is a TRADE OFF.

This is the problem. Some think state or corporate power mandating and controlling members is the solution to certain evils—but such control CREATES OTHER EVILS. Politics is always about trade-offs. If there were a perfect law that did all good and no harm, we’d just pass it.

This trade-off aspect is OBVIOUS in the case of “hate speech.” You can criminalize it or ban it institutionally—BUT you create climate of fear and resentment, create endless false positives, etc.

You end up with cases like the Comcast manager who said the n-word as an EXAMPLE of words that are not acceptable at Comcast—and was dutifully fired.

The US SCOTUS has said there just is no legal category of “hate speech.” This is good. The evil of allowing hate speech is TRIVIAL compared to the evils of an imposed censorship regime, governmental or corporate.

I whole-heartedly support equal treatment of all races, except in the few cases where race is relevant. (e.g. in Shakespeare, Othello needs to be dark-skinned).

But I fear non-discrimination LAW has become too much a curtailment of liberty.

This happened in the US in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Otherwise a good law, that one section went a little too far.

And since then it has metastasized: instead of new laws we’ve just added more and more protected characteristics.

But the virtue of justice in its specific application of nondescrimnation doesn’t work the same in all cases.

Comparing race to sex to sexual proclivity to religion isn’t just compared apples to oranges, it’s comparing apples to oranges to bananas to figs, etc.

So we find ourselves at present with actual personal racism at an all time low, and racial tension as high as it’s ever been. What accounts for it?

I suggest it’s the way anti-racism has become authoritarian and divisive.

“No it’s deep, hidden racism,” says the progressive, and continues to call for more and more authoritarian anti-racist gasoline to be sprayed on the fire.

When we opened the door of “it is legitimate for the state to control you regard ‘discrimination’ we opened a Pandora’s box.