> Either you're against discrimination or you're only against discrimination against <protected class X>, which makes you a discriminator.

"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House"

Moreover, I strongly suspect this kind of "reverse discrimination" (and general conditioning to identify racially) is driving a lot of right-wing radicalization. Even if you don't think "reverse racism" qualifies as "racism", surely you should be concerned if it is indeed driving more ole-fashioned, anti-minority racism, right?

Giving alms to the poor isn't "revenge-driven justice against the rich" - it's helping out people in need.

Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me.

Surely one can by analogy reason that there are ways to support historically disadvantaged groups that aren't "perpetuating discrimination"?

Hold on, that's a misquote. "revenge driven justice" does quote me. "Against the rich" doesn't; you added it. That's a pretty big leap away from my point. Do you believe that <protected class X> is "anybody who isn't rich?"

It's an analogy: you said that DEI supporters want to "discriminate actively against races/genders/orientations that haven't been discriminated against in the same way." (Let's call this "reverse discrimination" just for brevity)

I figured if you can understand that "alms for the poor" isn't an example of "reverse discrimination", then you can also understand that there are also ways to support historically-discriminated-against groups without reverse discrimination.

If you can make that leap, there's a whole dialog on whether current methods are reverse-discrimination or something else. If you can't make that leap, then there's not really a conversation to be had - our perspectives diverge too much to be mutually comprehensible.

>I figured if you can understand that "alms for the poor" isn't an example of "reverse discrimination"

This is comparing apples to oranges. Alms for the poor is a personal choice: I decide to give some of my own money to someone who I think needs it more than I do.

"Reverse discrimination" in the sense you're using it refers (within this analogy) to somebody else taking your money away from you, because they believe that somebody needs it more than you do. I could write a book (others already have) about how many things can and always do go wrong with this approach.

> Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me.

In what way is this obviously fallacious? Alms have to come from somewhere, and if you take them from the rich then it is clearly discrimination against the rich. You could very well make the argument that this is justified, but fallacious it is not.

That aside, it doesn't take a lot of scanning through those who purportedly wish to give alms to the poor before you find some outright revenge-driven rhetoric.

It’s also a broken analogy because “the rich” are always more privileged than “the poor”, but a given white person may be less privileged than a given nonwhite person.

> You could very well make the argument that this is justified

Discrimination isn't just "we treat people differently" - we put prisoners in jail, we don't trust liars, we try to keep abusers away from positions of power.

Discrimination is when it crosses the line into injustice - when you're acting solely off hatred and stereotypes.

Since you're conceding that it's justified, it seems that no actual injustice is occurring here.

Funnily enough, the poor having some more money often makes the rich wealthier in absolute terms just not in relative terms. The poor having money juices the economy a lot more than the rich having yet more money. Similarly with more diversity everyone is better off.

I think part of the problem is that the lines upon which diversity hires may be cut is a very rudimentary proxy for opportunity.

Minority != "the poors", despite Wolf Blitzer's gaffs.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sfo32rlkiE

I agree with your train of thought, but I disagree with the specifics.

Though, that's in part due to my own definition of discrimination in this context to be "placing a label to tell 2+ groups apart and taking action using that label".

Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor is inherently discriminating between the rich and the poor with a follow-up action to remove resources from one group (the rich) and give to the other (the poor). The action is there regardless of the reason or ethics of the context (i.e. why someone is rich or poor).

If someone really doesn't want to discriminate, sure. But I think the argument of "labelling it discrimination is wrong" is wrong in the sense of my own definition of discrimination. For me, a more useful argument would be "well, let's figure out the metrics we're optimizing when we discriminate like this".

I think that definition is going to cause some very confusing conversations. We don't generally talk about it being "discrimination" to put criminals in jail, keep abusers away from positions of power, or distrust liars. Generally speaking, when people talk about discrimination, it's because there's an injustice - the difference in treatment is based on stereotypes and hatred rather than any truth about that individual.