Thanks for commenting. Long comments don't bother me at all. I read them fully.
The definition of a term can be fluid and unclear. Language is always back-referential and to look up is to decide on a final decision of the one who looks up a word.
Many terms have made it from the concrete to the abstract and lose their sharpness as a result. Instead of "discrimination", one could also say: hindrance of taking part.
Generally, the term discrimination is seen in a negative light; in my opinion, there is no positive understanding of the word. However, one could speak of active and passive exclusion. One that is deliberate and one that automatically excludes people through the event taking place through the design of that event. This is what I have tried to show above.
Modern events tend strongly towards "exclusivity", basically a term that has been constantly positively charged but is essentially negative.
The denigration of language, I agree, is difficult to comprehend when terms like "an exclusive event" are seen as positive. Exclusion is everywhere, at events where only paying guests are admitted, for example, and also in companies where only certain expertise is welcome. Any club that only admits paying club members, also such an example. Therefore, the only remaining space where a certain freedom of participation is given is the street, the public space. One can freely decide whether to stop and join in or to move on. Spontaneity is the key to freedom here. In modern language, this is called "barrier-free access". The street belongs to no one and to everyone at the same time.
I am afraid, people are getting crazier and crazier in this regard, in other words; more restrictive in how they want to limit access.
Yesterday I went for a walk with my husband by a mountain lake. People are very rarely out in nature because their time is tied up in cities and work. Still, if you want, you can go to the forest and get some air. But now that nature is also being turned into a reserve, so that you are only allowed to enter if rules are followed, the very thought of it is oppressive, even though people already visit the places (mountains, lakes, forests) so rarely, there was always the possibility that if you wanted to, you could. But the moment the restriction sets in, a sense of loss sets in that was not there before.
It's the same with travel. I have travelled very little in the last twenty years. But if I had wanted to, I could have. Now that travel has become restrictive, I feel a loss where there was none before.
I love nature. Yeah, people should hike more.
If a man owns the forest, it could be argued that man makes up the rules for that place because private property rights, land rights. It is that simple. But it is assuming it is owned by an individual and not by groups of people or other options. So, when you go hiking, you follow the rules of the land owners. But that applies to private land. But if you were talking hypothetically or theoretically of like alleged public lands, then that is a different thing all together. Private land can be understood. Public land is a complex thing that would take a long time to investigate. And alleged public lands can be different depending on the country you are in.
Laws and other things relating to public lands in Vietnam may be different than what you might find in America and other countries. But at the same time, there are some similarities. But it is critical not to conflate public land with private land.
It can be said that tax payers pay for public lands meaning the tax payers own the public land some would argue. I'm not going to say they do but it depends and it would take a while to debate. But they make really good arguments. So, if you own the land, then you might be able to make up the rules. So, it really comes down to who owns the land. And even when a person thinks they own land, they might not really own the land depending on the types of laws that might be applicable in those types of situations.
A positive sense of discrimination is in the act of eating your food for example. When you eat your food, you are not sharing your food with other people. Only you are eating your food. That is not bad. You are eating your food. But somebody could say, "You're discriminating against me because you are not sharing your food with me."
Of course you can say, "But this has nothing to do with discrimination," and you would be right. But the problem is that people redefine and weaponize and twist words. All kinds of words are twisted so much and for so many decades. For example, gay means happy. Gay does not have to mean homosexuality. Gay can also mean something silly, dumb, weird, not so cool, not so exciting, pretty lame, pretty boring, pretty depressing.
Discrimination can sometimes be associated with censorship. Again, not saying that these two words should be connected but the perception can still connect these two words. For example, a bakery store refused to bake a wedding cake for 2 gay people who were getting married. So, some people said that was discrimination. Later on, there was censorship on Facebook. Some people started comparing the censorship of Facebook with what they called censorship at that bakery shop with that cake. That is how discrimination was connected to censorship.
And then there has been debates regarding whether or not Facebook should be allowed to censor as a platform and/or publisher depending whether or not Facebook is public property and/or private property of private companies and/or the list goes on and on regarding many different things as we have all been exploring for the past several years or in other ways for many decades.
In a sense, people getting it right to use the term "discrimination" when they at the same time think of "no other options in sight", a "state of being without any alternative whatsoever". There is, where arguments start to become fights. While some see alternatives and use them, others don't see them and feel trapped.
I think it could be best described as feeling of being cornered from all sides, no open doors for more than one exit.
I like to get rid of guessing cases of discrimination being talked online on a pure theoretical base. I myself could be seen as a case of having been discriminated. Still not sure, IF I could be seen as a pure example though. When I go more into the depths of the happenings I see alternatives and have used them. When the point is being reached by me that I don't see them, it might get tough.
Sorry, can't write longer, ...headaches.
All around the world, people are getting more headaches, it is not normal to get headaches, so I drink a bunch of water and take Magnesium for my migraines.
The only thing more important than the debate on what may or may not be discrimination would be the remedy. So, for example, if you are discriminated against, what should you do? I promote taking people to court if possible to have judges and jurors decide. But sometimes, some people can't always get attorneys or become their own lawyer. Maybe there are other problems. It can be expensive to have a trial. It can be challenging to sue people, etc.
So, another path would be the court of public opinion. So, if you feel like a store won't let you walk in to buy something because you don't have masks, Covid Vaccines, and the Covid passports, then protest and record it on video. Write some articles about it. That is what I encourage people to do. Let everyone know what happened. Expose them. Let the people decide. Encourage people to boycott them. We probably shouldn't give the store money if they are discriminating or whatever else they might be doing.
Oh, I consider to have headaches once in a while quite normal. It just happens, there is no pain-free state throughout my whole life. The older I become, the more pains there are. I know, they will be over in a certain time and that is it. I get either a rest or I might take a pain killer, both works or works not in different ways.
What you suggest is what people actually already do. This might not be to your taste of speed or intensity, but it happens. I would not necessarily want to "let the people decide" on my personal case, for I have already decided myself, after being realistic about my options and went through them step by step. One day it feels good and that I was victorious, the other day I maybe doubtful about it. For me, things are not crystal clear all the time. Of course, in the moment happening, I make my choice.
Headaches have been on a rise in the past century or longer globally, it partly comes from the WIFI, 5G, geoengineering, GMO food, now the Covid Vaccines, the chemicals they spray on farmland crops, the chemicals they put in the drinking water which is giving people diseases. That is the real pandemic which has been accelerating for decades now in a variety of ways.
let me give you one final answer on this:
There are thousands of pains and diagnostics in the "Pschyrembel". Once you start looking at everything which harms you, you won't stop worrying. I am really trying not to worry all the time and I feel that you want to talk me into the opposite. Sure, you can do that. Yes, modernity kills us in many ways, in the same way it supports us, as it seems much to displeasure. Who will judge it? Are you in the possession of full and absolute knowledge? I am not.
If doomsday happens, no one is prepared.