Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term - eviltoast
He’s openly plotting to persecute his enemies, assume kinglike powers, and deport millions of people. But at least we’ll all have flying cars!

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.

  • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
    1·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      By that definition, every choice is discrimination because any criteria you set necessarily excludes so other group.

      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.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        There are two definitions for discriminate:

        1. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people
        1. recognize a distinction; differentiate

        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).

        • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          We were in the legal definition of the term age discrimination, and what i said above is what’s relevant there.

          Race is a terrible analogy

          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.