12-27-2021, 11:17 AM
(12-27-2021, 10:54 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(12-26-2021, 09:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I don't really see how that's different from a stigmata...the only difference is that stigmata's are generally "unfair" but are not required to be. But discriminating against people who are not vaccinated seems like it is stigmatizing.
Discriminating in what way?
If it’s “no entry to restaurants if you’re not vaccinated” then it’s just a sensible public health precaution. If it’s “you can’t get on the Internet if you’re not vaccinated” then it’s clearly inappropriate targeting of people for irrelevant reasons. There are certainly situations in the middle where a productive discussion could be had on whether a particular instance of discrimination was reasonable and justified or not.
The phrase "Sensible public health precautions" describes discrimination. Just like stigmatizing, the negative aspects of the word discrimination (like it being inappropriate and unjust) are not necessary for the word to apply, it's just how the word is usually intended when used to describe effects on people.
But I wouldn't use it that way outside a conversation with people that I largely trust to have an adult conversation. I would however use other terms, like prejudicial and unjustly to be more specific and intentional.