Rule 5 ignores basic human nature and survival instinct!!

I think I see the issue.

The title of Rule 5 is not specific; it is just 3 words with no qualification.

This does not make sense if taken literally because of course you discriminate against someone who wanted to do you harm.

Discrimination based on protected characteristics is covered by the Equality Act 2010, so we have to abide by that. But it only covers those characteristics, so you can dislike someone of another race etc. if they are a nasty person, but not just because they are another race etc.

On a forum where people are expected to be civil, you might want to extend not discriminating beyond the 9 protected characteristics, but it would be hard to put this into words.

I think the main thing is to be polite and remember the old saying, if you have nothing nice to say then say nothing.

From my end, discrimination is when you treat someone worse because of a protected trait, choice is picking based on behavior, merit, or logistics. In my volunteer group we dropped a member for skipping trainings and not paying dues. That’s a choice. Denying someone a spot because they’re Muslim or gay would be discrimination.

As TheCatWoman's head dosen't so up at the back she assumes that others are as capable as she is of looking in a dictionary and even a thesaurus which gives related words too the one under question. TheCatWoman also assumes that the heads of other posters don't do up at the back either and so wouldn't fall into the parralell universe of "alternative facts" etc.

TheCatWoman said:

she was trying to have a discussion about meanings, uses etc of the words, rather than state what dictionaries say the words mean

Dictionaries are supposed to be the keepers of the real meanings of words though, not how we choose to use them.

Look at how phrases like "alternative facts" and "fake news" have taken words and twisted them into new meanings - best to let the dictionaries guide their use rather than the parties who may want to change them for their own agendas.

Discrimination has a range of meanings but he one that I Sperg refers to is the legal one - i.e. if the actions you take because of your prejudice towards a legally protected group have any effect on that group then it is prejudice and is illegal.

To just think about it or make decisions that do not impact them if acceptable - it is called prejudice and is not illegal. Only taking action that affects them is covered by the term discrimination in this context.

So you could choose not to speak to a member of that protected group in a social context - this is a valid choice and is prejudice but does not disadvantage them. If you tell them to get out because you don't want them there then that is discrimination.

You would have to prove that the action was based on their protected characteristic in order to have any success however, but such is the social stigma building up around the word that even an accusation of it can be damaging now.

Catwoman said that because she was trying to have a discussion about meanings, uses etc of the words, rather than state what dictionaries say the words mean

Rule 5 is qualified.

It's not just saying 'don't discriminate':

Rule 5: Do not discriminate. Do not post or link to anything that is considered offensive to others with regard to the protected characteristics outlined in UK equality legislation: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation. We encourage open conversation, but everyone has the right to share ideas without fear of hostility. 

that is an example - I'm looking for a definition that would cover any examples.

I Sperg  started this thread around the meanings of the terms so I wanted to keep it in that vein.

I would normally do the research but my connection here is very intermittent today.

Iain said:

Can anyone point to a clear cut definition when something is discrimination

Racial segregation eg. apartheid.

TheCatWoman said:

discrimination implies a blanket refusal of certain things, groups and information

I had a look at the dictionary definition of disciminate and it doesn't explicitly say this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate

to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

What is happening is the word has become weaponised to be used against people.

In its true form it is exactly what I Sperg  says, it is choice.

When people don't like your choice then they will accuse you of discriination because it adds social weight to the arguement that the person making the choice is bad.

Can anyone point to a clear cut definition when something is discrimination and when it is free choice (even if you don't agree with it that is)?

I think there's a difference between discrimination and making choices, choice gives an impression at least, of informed choices and the ability to obtain the information, whereas discrimination implies a blanket refusal of certain things, groups and information. You could say the same things about words like "judgement", I use my judgement on when it's safe to cross the road, which a positive use, a negative use would be deciding that somebody is wrong, mad, bad and dangerous, mearly because I disagree with them.

Justice is another loaded word, with some believing it to mean indulgence for themselves and punishment for everybody else, I think this is always worth keeping in mind when having to decide things that will impact on others.