- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.org
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.org
- news@lemmy.world
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.
I don’t want to pass any sort of judgement on whether it is or isn’t age discrimination, but your way of arriving at this conclusion is flawed. It’s like saying voters can choose all sorts of criteria to select their favourite, so going by the criterion of race can’t be racism. Those possible criteria can have different names and descriptors, independent of whether they are possible or not.
His age does indeed put him into a risk group for possible dementia, true, but the criterion disqualifying him would be if he specifically does have dementia or not - not his age. Young people can develop dementia with a certain probability too, that does not exclude young people, it only excludes young people who actually do develop dementia.
Possibly one of the most needlessly pedantic comments I’ve ever received.
Age discrimination is typically, almost entirely, discussed as a legal issue, most often within the arena of employment. The reason being that most people realize and accept that age affects abilities. So taking into account the age of a candidate wouldn’t be age discrimination in the typical sense.
And he’s going to take a cognitive test at my request and share the results? And those results will guarantee that he won’t develop dementia for the next five years? If the answer to either is no, then I need to make a decision based on probability. He’s far more likely to develop dementia than someone in their 70s, and I would guess hundreds to thousands of times more likely than someone in their 40s.
Not to mention that life expectancy would hold that he’d be dead by now. He’s fairly likely to die in office, especially when considering the stress of the job.
Why, thank you, but be aware that flattery will get you nowhere.
Alrighty, then let’s look at your comment from the perspective of legality. Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age. That’s the definition. Now if we were to continue here and expand our scope, we could state that this is illegal in working environments because - short version - there are laws making it so in the workplace, but that does not touch what is or isn’t age discrimination. Since there are no laws declaring it illegal in an electoral context, age discrimination happening while voting is not illegal there, but it still very much is age discrimination. Just like in our previous example, not voting for a candidate because one doesn’t like their race is still racism, but like above, it is not illegal because no law says it is.
True enough, not much difference in your conclusion because it is not a case of illegal age discrimination, but
it literally is.
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.
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.
There are two definitions for discriminate:
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).
We were in the legal definition of the term age discrimination, and what i said above is what’s relevant there.
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.
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.
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.