We all discriminate. If you claim that you don't, you are a liar. We couldn't function if we didn't. I know that when I am talking to a lawyer, I can talk in a way I can't to a lay person. I categorize, I make assumptions based on the person's license. I use that shorthand to know approximately how I can relate to the person in front of me.

The same when I talk to a two year old. I know he thinks a certain way, and is not yet capable of thinking in other ways.

I discriminate against people carrying certain banners, wearing certain images (especially when they are of murderous communists), belonging to certain parties, or choosing not to, or following only certain media. If you have tattoos (especially of murderous communists), piercings, crazy hair, I will start to discriminate.

If you are a vegan, I have thoughts about you, especially when you try to impose your dietary world view on me. If you smoke, are obese, drive certain cars, dress a certain way, I already decide things about you before you open your mouth. Sometimes this is even to your advantage.

And if you are just plain stupid, I may very well choose not to give you more than the time of day.

So why should you be surprised if I discriminate based on your religion, or your color, or your sex, or how you choose to identify yourself, at least initially? I'm right enough of the time that I save significant amounts of time every day because of it.

So What Kind of Discrimination is Wrong?

So the question isn't if we discriminate, or if we can avoid it. We can't. If you've read this far, you probably already have an opinion of me. If you are a Social Justice Warrior type, you may have already decided I am part of the white male patriarchy, incapable of true understanding, in other words, part of the problem, and possibly to be eliminated or oppressed as a wrong thinking individual. This is discrimination. Do you have any idea who I love, how else I contribute to the world, if I work to make it better, even for you, whom I may despise?

If you swing the other way, you may say “Hear, hear. Here's a person who gets it.” But I can ask you similar questions: Do you know who I love, or hate, how I might have made your world better, or worse, if I'd really give you the time of day if we met?

You don't, but you've got an idea, and sometimes that's all we want, or need.

So Which is Wrong?

The problem isn't the box. The problem comes when we lock it. Just because I initially think something, this doesn't make it right. It may help me to function in the world, but it's a starting point. What's wrong might be not getting past the great chunks of metal in a person's face to see the person underneath.

On the other hand, don't expect me to put you in a customer facing role if I know that other people might have problems with the great chunks of metal in your face. Why should I have to pay extra for your right to self-express?

And it's very possible I don't understand the world like (name your special oppressed minority here). The problem comes when you decide that I can't even begin to imagine the world through another person's eyes, and must therefore take second seat to your clear and perfect vision. The problem comes when you don't see that this might just be a function of your own bias. The problem comes when you use your bias to suppress any thoughts that are dissimilar to yours, when you dismiss from the get-go that a disparate thought might also be worthy of consideration.

This is wrong. The problem comes when people decide that a society must be structured in a certain way for the good of all, and then kill ten, twenty, thirty million people, and surpress and intimidate the rest, in pursuit of an idea.

This is the worst kind of discrimination, the kind that discriminates against thought, the kind that make people prisoners in their own house, in their own mind.

The Problem

We do discriminate. People suffer. That is the way of the world. Is it wrong that we choose to work with people who come from the same place, who share our shorthands, whom we can express ourselves freely with? And if it is, how wrong is it?

Is it wrong that we choose a church, or religion, or a cause, or to hang with the people who also choose as we have?

And if it is, how far must we carry our remedies? If it bothers me that the faculty of a school leans too far left, should I be able to sue to ensure that each faculty have an appropriate number of conservatives or republicans?

The thing is on a one by one basis, it's very difficult to prove that a particular person was the vicitim of discrimination. When we choose to presume it on the basis of background or skin color, we are very clearly discriminating on very thin grounds.

For some people, poverty was a big motivator. For others, it's a background conversation that can't be escaped. Perhaps ours is to look at what we can do about the conversation rather than presume an effect and discriminate based on the faulty presumption, and then cause others to possibly resent the whole scheme.

The Solution

If we want true diversity, this includes diversity of thought. This includes thoughts that you or I might not like. The solution is to be okay with this. The solution is to believe that others might actually be willing to engage in a dialogue (even if it's a far-fetched idea). The solution is to understand that maybe your counterparty - especially in the world of politics - only wants a better world, just like you do.

The way to be okay with this is to invite dialogue with those you don't understand, not to try to suppress their ideas. And as you understand better, your job is to discriminate better, and help that person do the same.

Take dogs, for instance. Maybe they are dangerous and pose a threat. Maybe we should be scared of all dogs. Some people are. But some people maybe know a different reality. Maybe we just need to be more careful about certain breeds. Perhaps we can teach you to discriminate between dangerous breeds and less dangerous breeds. Maybe it's a function of training. Maybe when you really know dogs, you can tell their mood or if they are dangerous by the wag of the tail.

You'll never get that far if you've stopped at dogs are dangerous.

The solution is to get people past these absolute statements, about things like abortion, guns, religion, public assistance, corporate welfare and influence, national debt, taxes, government intervention into the thousands of places it does.

So the solution really is to eliminate all forms of official discrimination, whether in college admissions, government employment, or as imposed on the private sector. We will not learn how to discriminate well if we are forced to discriminate badly.

And if you are concerned that certain groups are under-represented, give your business to members of those groups. Create a new dialogue. But don't run up the victim card, especially someone else's, in your attempt to shape the world in your certain fantastical image, and then expect me to keep my mouth shut. That is not a solution to discrimination. That, we call oppression.