To me, the answer to the poll question is an unequivocal yes, though I will acknowledge I still had hesitation answering that way. The complexity of the issues involved here makes it very difficult to boil down a response to a binary choice.
random fact
Looping is also referred to as Group ADR (Automated Dialogue Replacement) and walla. During filming, a production sound mixer records dialogue. When the film goes into post-production, a supervising sound editor, also known as an ADR supervisor, reviews all of the dialogue and decides what must be re-recorded.Sep. 25, 2019
Consider discrimination in hiring an employee. It may manifest as "I will not hire this person, even though they are the most qualified, because they are (fill in the blank)." I expect this continues to happen, though I would hope we've progressed enough as a society that it is relatively rare. Discriminatory behaviours and systems, on both individual and systemic levels, do not have to be so overt however; they can be subtle, subconscious and/or unintentional. Further, they might go unnoticed. The example of names on a CV impacting the likelihood of getting an interview is a prime example of these attributes. On the employer's side, such discrimination might occur without any conscious intent or maliciousness, and neither a person denied an interview nor the person ultimately being hired need be aware it occurred. I think there would be naivety in assuming oneself immune to this. We all routinely engage in judgment, which is in some respects an essential aspect of functioning, but has negative consequences requiring self-awareness to mitigate.
One issue here is choice of language. Terms such as privileged, underprivileged, oppressor, oppressed, agent group, target group etc. all exist and have closely related meanings in use. There is debate in academic circles about which are most appropriate. There can be associations of blame, guilt, defensiveness and so on that can actually be counterproductive to the intent behind such discussion: to improve social justice. This can be very subjective. I, for example, wouldn't take issue with the statement "White privilege exists," though I do take some issue with reframing it into "All White people are privileged," which I've heard. In part this is due to a subtle shift in tone that connotes more intention, conflict and blame. Further, I see it as invoking the logical fallacy of overgeneralization. Variables of this nature are inherently probabilistic. So, even if White privilege exists, that does not imply all While people benefit from it, at least not in any universal or consistent sense. I think a general awareness of such issues is vital to understanding how we can better function as a society, but it is important to remember that the broader experience of a class of people need not reflect the experience of an individual belonging to that class, and vice versa. Always, a person is an individual first and foremost.
If I take myself as an example, I identify as White, male, straight. I would think it reasonable to suggest those identifiers may have eased my relationship with society in ways throughout my life. I also identify as having a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, something which I have addressed in other threads before. Largely by definition, this identifier means that I do not fit neatly within many cultural norms, and that can definitely create tension in my relationship with society. I am aware that acknowledging this aspect of myself brings about certain judgments in others, some of which will not accurately characterize the identifier generally, let alone me specifically. But without this self-identification, it is in many respects invisible, as most people I encounter will have no idea it applies to me. This is both a blessing and a curse; while I might never be exposed to the associations people would have if they knew, the discrimination that does exist can also be more problematic for its invisibility.
There are a host of examples from my life I could bring forward, though I think one of the most useful is the subject of academic petitions. At times during my university education, my mental health status made it effectively impossible for me to complete courses, leaving fails on my record. Having those addressed through academic petitions could be extremely difficult due to a variety of regulations and requirements. Navigating the bureaucracy involved was practically no more reasonable at the time than completing the courses would have been. Now, the intent behind this bureaucracy may not have been discriminatory. Nor would it have been universal in its impact; some people with mental health concerns might experience no undue burden, and some people without might struggle with the bureaucracy regardless. But I have little doubt there was a disproportionate effect on those dealing with mental health. The system for judging an academic petition was more difficult to access for reasons not related to the actual merit of such a petition, and in that way the system was discriminatory. It is a case where treating people equally does not mean treating them equitably.
