Kort Explores conundrums of the human condition

The term discrimination has become a favorite target of the popular media, and has been demonized in the minds of many to the point where the label has been transformed into a shameful stigma. But is the current hysteria about discrimination a valid response to flawed racial attitudes as alleged, or just an extension of the broad drive to deny citizens the right to make their own decisions in life.

Seems to me there are different kinds of discrimination - some good, some bad. Most discussion has addressed the kind that grows out of ignorance, or a desire to believe one's status is elevated by imagining others are inferior. But isn't the ability to discriminate the intended outcome of learning? We learn the discriminate between things to eat and things that eat us, techniques that work from those that don't, and which members of our own species who will help us from those that will cause us harm.

Developing ways to quickly discriminate between alternatives is an important part of living, and evolving sets of rules to aid in quickly reaching decisions is a logical efficiency. When we like or benefit from those rules we call them discerning or common sense, while when we don't we call them bigotry. It's not the basic function of discrimination that is the problem, just some of the implementations - especially when we try to extrapolate from the individual to whole racial groups.

That said, it seems to me that the real issue in society today isn't whether discrimination is good or bad, but rather which group should benefit. Demands that would be patently outrageous if inflicted on a member of the protected group become acceptable if the intended target can be alleged to be one of the various politically incorrect types of bigots.

When their positions are viewed from a dispassionate perspective stripped of the distorting veil of political correctness, it becomes obvious that those most vocal today in damning the "bigots" of the past are in actual practice promoting their own agenda of discrimination to benefit their group at the expense of those they seek to demonize. Seems to me the current advocates of racial or sexual discrimination are no different than the bigots they so loudly and relentlessly rail against to justify their cause and income stream. In fact, the alleged "right" to current advantage based on the perception of past injustice has provided the justification for nearly all programs advocated by the official spokesmen of mainstream minority groups over the last couple decades.

Whole industries have grown up to support and sustain the image of perpetual victimhood that has become so useful in leveraging special advantages and privileges for the "victims". One has to search hard for anyone advocating a true end of group based discrimination of all kinds. The facade of righteousness under which most current "reformers" conceal their true intentions reveals itself as a venal sham when you strip away the double talk and deception to reveal that the demanded "solutions" to discrimination are nothing but variations of discrimination themselves.

The issue needs to evolve into a true elimination of all forms of group prejudice while leaving intact the principle of discrimination among individuals. We'll always need to be able to select which individuals - by their own merits or hazards - with whom we choose to associate or to employ. The steep decline of our school systems and unionized industries demonstrate the flaws in prohibiting discrimination based on individual performance. If the issue remains one of validating group prejudice but only attempting to redefine which group will benefit, I have no choice but to advocate those benefits go to the group to which I belong.