Prejudice - some thoughts.

[LOki]

Actually, it's just indicative of a person who's not blinded to reality by political correctness.

BRAVO!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

BRAVO!!!

Thanks! So you admit you're wrong and prejudice is just another word for learning?

 

[LOki]

Thanks! So you admit you're wrong and prejudice is just another word for learning?

Nope. Waving at the passengers on the dumb train is no agreement with their dumb from me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nope. Waving at the passengers on the dumb train is no agreement with their dumb from me.

Plus, you know you're wrong. It's SMART to use all existing data we have on various populations when making split second decisions. It doesn't mean that in different settings you don't look at people as individuals. It just means you don't wander down dark alleys in black neighborhoods as a white person because of your "enlightenment".

 

[LOki]

Plus, you know you're wrong. It's SMART to use all existing data we have on various populations when making split second decisions. It doesn't mean that in different settings you don't look at people as individuals. It just means you don't wander down dark alleys in black neighborhoods as a white person because of your "enlightenment".

I avoid certain areas of certain neigborhoods for reasons entirely independent of the skin color of the residents of those neighborhoods--in fact, the skin color of the residents is not a consideration.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I avoid certain areas of certain neigborhoods for reasons entirely independent of the skin color of the residents of those neighborhoods--in fact, the skin color of the residents is not a consideration.

What is the racial predominance of these neighborhoods you're referring to?

 

[Gunny]

Hey GunnyL! Game On! It is not necesary to prejudge anything, so I disagree that everyone must be prejudiced. I'll admit that it is difficult to avoid, I'll even admit that prejudjing is not advisable to avoid, and I'm not going to admit that I am sucessful myself or particularly need to be. I can admit to prejudging people--but I'll say this: I am not prejudiced on the basis of skin tone--at all.

There are boatloads of folks who are not discriminatory. To be discriminatory requires the capacity to recognize and act based on the differences between things. Those who don't know their elbow from a hole in the ground are not discriminatory. Pigs are not discriminatory in what they eat.

The important distictions are the basis upon how one judges others, the relevance one places on particular differences, and the validity of prejudging one characteristic based on another.

Cognizant that this thread concerns bigotry, let me assert that it is valid to recognize differenced in skin tone amongst human beings. But it is invalid to make the assertion that skin tone in any way, has any effect on an individual's intelligence, moral bearing, or competence.

Those who assert that skin tone is the place where a man's intellect, moral bearing, or competence is determined are morons. They are morons attempting to assign to themselves the legitimate virtues of others, that they do not posses themselves, based on irrelevent critera. e.g. Einstein had white skin; Einstein was a genius: I have white skin; I am a genius.

The upshot of this bullshit is that in order to maintain the validity of their basis of their unearned possession of these virtues, they must now villify other skin tones (in this case) to deny the corellations evident in the presence of virtues possessed by indiviuals who are superficially different.

Nonsense.

Truth.

You disappoint me. I figured you to be a bit more logical than your response indicates. It appears you have applied context to my statement that does not in fact exist.

I did not specify any one type of prejudice; rather, made a statement concerning the word "prejudice" itself. It starts with choosing which side of the bed you roll out on in the morning. Choosing = making a decision = discrimination.

As far as racial discrimination is concerned, we do not have an argument, except that your statement that all racists are morons is a bit overboard and does not really address the issue.

Clearly racism is based on hate, fear, and/or ignorance, and is illogical. It is an emotional response to the aforementioned. Your response to THAT response is equally emotion-based, with little fact to support it.

 

[LOki]

You disappoint me. I figured you to be a bit more logical than your response indicates. It appears you have applied context to my statement that does not in fact exist.

I'm sorry to have disappointed you GunnyL, but I think your disappointment resides in a cursory scan of my response rather than the logic and substance of it that is rather apparent if examined a bit more carefully.

I did not specify any one type of prejudice; rather, made a statement concerning the word "prejudice" itself. It starts with choosing which side of the bed you roll out on in the morning. Choosing = making a decision = discrimination.

If I have done you harm, by adhereing to the context of this thread and applying that context to your post under the assumption you were responding to the thread, rather than simply offering an opinion on the nature of "discrimination" by itself, I apologize for not taking your post out of context.

I did make note, however, of the non-racist applicability of prejudice, GunnyL. You'll observe, if you give my response a bit more that a cursory scan, and the care it deserves, that I recognize that to be discriminating means one possesses the capacity to recognize differences amongst individuals in a class--yet I can still parse out that the point of prejudice in the context of this thread is racial prejudice, and I see no point in pretending that it is not. I think it remains perfectly valid to question the basis of judging the value of people on the basis of skin color.

As far as racial discrimination is concerned, we do not have an argument, except that your statement that all racists are morons is a bit overboard and does not really address the issue.

I'd say it was an observation that introduces the notion that intellectual sloth, thoughtlessness, disregard for facts, and lack of moral integrity are the hallmarks of racist thought--and that does address the issue insofar as the basis of any prejudice or discrimination is validly worthy of being questioned and judged as well.

And labeling racists as "morons" based on their intellectual sloth, thoughtlessness, disregard for facts, and lack of moral integrity is no more over-the-top than asserting that those who are not prejudiced/discriminatory are bowls of Jell-O based on their incapacity for discerning the patent differences between individuals of a population. So please, allow me to judge racists to be morons. Ok?

Clearly racism is based on hate, fear, and/or ignorance, and is illogical. It is an emotional response to the aforementioned. Your response to THAT response is equally emotion-based, with little fact to support it.

Nonsense. "[Racists attempt] to assign to themselves the legitimate virtues of others, that they do not posses themselves, based on irrelevent critera. e.g. Einstein had white skin; Einstein was a genius: I have white skin; I am a genius." You'll note (if you look into it) vegetarians make the same flavor (heh.) of bigoted assertion for the exact same case I use as example, i.e. "Einstein was a vegetarian; Einstein was a genius: I am vegetarian; I am a genius."

Although invalid, the vegetarian can at least make the claim that he makes the same descision a genius made--comparing descision for descision. The racist however, makes the bold claim that skin color is the valuable condition of genius that validates the rascist's claim for his own intellectual value. Vegetarians are likely to be morons, but racists are certainly so.

The premise of my response, GunnyL, is not emotion based--asserting that opinions based on hate, fear, and/or ignorance are the purview of morons is not emotional: it is the objective recognition that the people who base their hateful, fearful, and ignorant opinions of others on superficial, and irrelevent criteria are very stupid, and fact is supplied--you just need to examine my post with greater care.

 

[LOki]

What is the racial predominance of these neighborhoods you're referring to?

Predominantly human.

 

[Annie]

Loki, I may or may not agree with you on issues, I can't tell. I don't mind reading long posts, but yours most often seem to use words for the sake of word count. I want to read them, you're usually addressing the smarter folks around here, yet I can't get by the snideness. It's like having the brilliant professor whose class you just cannot stay awake in.

 

[LOki]

Loki, I may or may not agree with you on issues, I can't tell. I don't mind reading long posts, but yours most often seem to use words for the sake of word count. I want to read them, you're usually addressing the smarter folks around here, yet I can't get by the snideness. It's like having the brilliant professor whose class you just cannot stay awake in.

"Snideness" is not the usual intent of my usage of vocabulary and sentence structure. You may assign whatever tone you like to my posting, (and I assure you that is what you are doing) but endeavor to not hold me responsible for it.

I attempt to use precise language to convey the concepts I am discussing with others so I can say what I mean, which allows me then to mean what I say. If the things I mean to say are not dumb things, you'll have to just excuse me for not dumbing them down.

And you'll also just have to accept that my presumption that you understand the vocabulary is NOT an insult you; that my presumption you understand my sentence structure is NOT an insult you; and that my presumption you understand the concepts I am discussing is NOT an insult you.

Ok?

 

[Gunny]

I'm sorry to have disappointed you GunnyL, but I think your disappointment resides in a cursory scan of my response rather than the logic and substance of it that is rather apparent if examined a bit more carefully.

If I have done you harm, by adhereing to the context of this thread and applying that context to your post under the assumption you were responding to the thread, rather than simply offering an opinion on the nature of "discrimination" by itself, I apologize for not taking your post out of context.

I did make note, however, of the non-racist applicability of prejudice, GunnyL. You'll observe, if you give my response a bit more that a cursory scan, and the care it deserves, that I recognize that to be discriminating means one possesses the capacity to recognize differences amongst individuals in a class--yet I can still parse out that the point of prejudice in the context of this thread is racial prejudice, and I see no point in pretending that it is not. I think it remains perfectly valid to question the basis of judging the value of people on the basis of skin color.

I'd say it was an observation that introduces the notion that intellectual sloth, thoughtlessness, disregard for facts, and lack of moral integrity are the hallmarks of racist thought--and that does address the issue insofar as the basis of any prejudice or discrimination is validly worthy of being questioned and judged as well.

And labeling racists as "morons" based on their intellectual sloth, thoughtlessness, disregard for facts, and lack of moral integrity is no more over-the-top than asserting that those who are not prejudiced/discriminatory are bowls of Jell-O based on their incapacity for discerning the patent differences between individuals of a population. So please, allow me to judge racists to be morons. Ok?

Nonsense. "[Racists attempt] to assign to themselves the legitimate virtues of others, that they do not posses themselves, based on irrelevent critera. e.g. Einstein had white skin; Einstein was a genius: I have white skin; I am a genius." You'll note (if you look into it) vegetarians make the same flavor (heh.) of bigoted assertion for the exact same case I use as example, i.e. "Einstein was a vegetarian; Einstein was a genius: I am vegetarian; I am a genius."

Although invalid, the vegetarian can at least make the claim that he makes the same descision a genius made--comparing descision for descision. The racist however, makes the bold claim that skin color is the valuable condition of genius that validates the rascist's claim for his own intellectual value. Vegetarians are likely to be morons, but racists are certainly so.

The premise of my response, GunnyL, is not emotion based--asserting that opinions based on hate, fear, and/or ignorance are the purview of morons is not emotional: it is the objective recognition that the people who base their hateful, fearful, and ignorant opinions of others on superficial, and irrelevent criteria are very stupid, and fact is supplied--you just need to examine my post with greater care.

The following is the original context of this thread:

I am prejudiced.

My whole life is based on it. I draw alot of conclusions without knowing things, instead I rely on prejudice. It is quick, it is easy and it saves time. Alot of time. It is acctually about oddment, isn't it?

I am prejudice in traffic. It saves my life. I am prejudice about colored people (Very often they speak the language badly, so they are not my first choice of asking for the right way, for instance)

But I know I am prejudiced. By knowing it I can easy reevaluate and change my initial prejudice. I adapt well I guess. And thinking of it, doesn't everyone work this way? Aren't we all prejudiced?

From now on I am not going to see the prejudice as the wrong thing, but rather people who claim they are not. I'll prejudice them as liers from now on.

That is the first post. I see NO reference to race in it.

 

[Annie]

"Snideness" is not the usual intent of my usage of vocabulary and sentence structure. You may assign whatever tone you like to my posting, (and I assure you that is what you are doing) but endeavor to not hold me responsible for it.

I attempt to use precise language to convey the concepts I am discussing with others so I can say what I mean, which allows me then to mean what I say. If the things I mean to say are not dumb things, you'll have to just excuse me for not dumbing them down.

And you'll also just have to accept that my presumption that you understand the vocabulary is NOT an insult you; that my presumption you understand my sentence structure is NOT an insult you; and that my presumption you understand the concepts I am discussing is NOT an insult you.

Ok?

Ok, read this...

 

[Gunny]

I'm sorry to have disappointed you GunnyL, but I think your disappointment resides in a cursory scan of my response rather than the logic and substance of it that is rather apparent if examined a bit more carefully.

If I have done you harm, by adhereing to the context of this thread and applying that context to your post under the assumption you were responding to the thread, rather than simply offering an opinion on the nature of "discrimination" by itself, I apologize for not taking your post out of context.

See my post above. The topic originally was not racial discrimination.

I did make note, however, of the non-racist applicability of prejudice, GunnyL. You'll observe, if you give my response a bit more that a cursory scan, and the care it deserves, that I recognize that to be discriminating means one possesses the capacity to recognize differences amongst individuals in a class--yet I can still parse out that the point of prejudice in the context of this thread is racial prejudice, and I see no point in pretending that it is not. I think it remains perfectly valid to question the basis of judging the value of people on the basis of skin color.

I'd say it was an observation that introduces the notion that intellectual sloth, thoughtlessness, disregard for facts, and lack of moral integrity are the hallmarks of racist thought--and that does address the issue insofar as the basis of any prejudice or discrimination is validly worthy of being questioned and judged as well.

And labeling racists as "morons" based on their intellectual sloth, thoughtlessness, disregard for facts, and lack of moral integrity is no more over-the-top than asserting that those who are not prejudiced/discriminatory are bowls of Jell-O based on their incapacity for discerning the patent differences between individuals of a population. So please, allow me to judge racists to be morons. Ok?

Had my statement been made with racial discrimination in mind, I would be happy to oblige you. The "Jell-o" statement refers only to those incapable of decision-making in any form.

Nonsense. "[Racists attempt] to assign to themselves the legitimate virtues of others, that they do not posses themselves, based on irrelevent critera. e.g. Einstein had white skin; Einstein was a genius: I have white skin; I am a genius." You'll note (if you look into it) vegetarians make the same flavor (heh.) of bigoted assertion for the exact same case I use as example, i.e. "Einstein was a vegetarian; Einstein was a genius: I am vegetarian; I am a genius."

Although invalid, the vegetarian can at least make the claim that he makes the same descision a genius made--comparing descision for descision. The racist however, makes the bold claim that skin color is the valuable condition of genius that validates the rascist's claim for his own intellectual value. Vegetarians are likely to be morons, but racists are certainly so.

The premise of my response, GunnyL, is not emotion based--asserting that opinions based on hate, fear, and/or ignorance are the purview of morons is not emotional: it is the objective recognition that the people who base their hateful, fearful, and ignorant opinions of others on superficial, and irrelevent criteria are very stupid, and fact is supplied--you just need to examine my post with greater care.

I read your post. Let's get beyond you thinking my not agreeing with you over some of the details on a topic that in principle, we have like opinions is my not examining your posts with greater care.

This ain't our first rodeo. If you think I'm going to skim one of your posts or not pay attention to what you are saying, you need to rethink THAT assumption.

You are entitled to your opinion that racists are morons. I simply disagree. That is not to say I advocate racism, nor find it appealing in any way. Racism -- the hatred and fear of something different -- is not just some social phenomenon. It also is quite natural. I will use the white wolf in a pack of gray wolves as my example. It's a natural instinct as well as a lack of education.

I find it hard to fault uneducated people for not being educated. An educated person who still allows fear, hatred and emotion to rule their actions IS stupid. But I DO draw a distinction between the twol whereas, you lump them all in one barrel.

 

[LOki]

The following is the original context of this thread:

I am prejudiced.

My whole life is based on it. I draw alot of conclusions without knowing things, instead I rely on prejudice. It is quick, it is easy and it saves time. Alot of time. It is acctually about oddment, isn't it?

I am prejudice in traffic. It saves my life. I am prejudice about colored people (Very often they speak the language badly, so they are not my first choice of asking for the right way, for instance)

But I know I am prejudiced. By knowing it I can easy reevaluate and change my initial prejudice. I adapt well I guess. And thinking of it, doesn't everyone work this way? Aren't we all prejudiced?

From now on I am not going to see the prejudice as the wrong thing, but rather people who claim they are not. I'll prejudice them as liers from now on.

That is the first post. I see NO reference to race in it.

Ok. But I did. Chalk it up to the caprices of subjective perception.

I read your post. Let's get beyond you thinking my not agreeing with you over some of the details on a topic that in principle, we have like opinions is my not examining your posts with greater care.

This ain't our first rodeo. If you think I'm going to skim one of your posts or not pay attention to what you are saying, you need to rethink THAT assumption.

I know this GunnyL, I was just giving you the gentlest of to make sure you got real interested.

You are entitled to your opinion that racists are morons. I simply disagree. That is not to say I advocate racism, nor find it appealing in any way. Racism -- the hatred and fear of something different -- is not just some social phenomenon. It also is quite natural. I will use the white wolf in a pack of gray wolves as my example. It's a natural instinct as well as a lack of education.

Not lack of education. Take any mixed bunch of children who have not been taught racism, and you'll discover none of them are racists. They can distinguish between the shades of skin tone certainly, but they make no value judgments upon them--racism is taught first by parents, and then by others. Once indoctrinated into racist thought, that racism must then be unlearned. I'm certain you've had plenty of experience with this. Yet even if you wish to insist upon instinctual racism, I'll warrant that thoughtful human beings are a bit above this particular instinct in much the way they are above the instinct to shit on the front yard.

I find it hard to fault uneducated people for not being educated. An educated person who still allows fear, hatred and emotion to rule their actions IS stupid. But I DO draw a distinction between the twol whereas, you lump them all in one barrel.

Oh, I'll certainly make accomodation for those who just don't know better because they were indoctrinated with a boatload of bullshit--and as I discuss racists, I'm not speaking of those who innocently use racist idioms in their speech (really now, I'm no racist for calling my friend a crazy cracker), but I am speaking of precisely those you describe who have the benefit, not only of education (in the unlearning of racism sense), but also of critical thought. If despite the counter education and critical examination of their surroundings someone should insist on clinging to notions that skin color has any bearing on a person's value, then that unambiguously racist individual is clearly a moron.

 

[liberalogic]

For eight months out of the year, I live in New York City. What's amazing about it is that extreme poverty coexists with extreme wealth. You walk through Washington Square Park and see homeless people sleeping on benches. You then walk a few blocks downtown and you find luxurious apartments and even homes. While this is a drastic difference, somehow everyone manages to live in the same area.

With that said, I'm not racist, but rather CAUTIOUS of my surroundings. From what I've observed with my own eyes, black and hispanic people in the city tend to cause the most violence and act most erratically. Specifically young males. Whenever I read of a crime in the newspaper, it often involves one of those two minorities.

I often took the subway during rush hour and at 3 or 4 in the morning. If you simply sit back and observe, you will see these two minorities acting as if they own the train, as if it's theirs to do as they please. Instinctually, I would choose to sit next to a white person rather than a black person in New York City because of what I've seen, heard, and read. It's not a matter of being racist, it's a matter of being smart in your own surroundings.

 

[ErikViking]

This a rather unflattering admission to make, and one that thoughtful human beings don't make. What you're saying of yourself is, "I'm too stupid, or intellectually lazy, to recognize and evaluate a person's value on the same criteria I recognize and evaluate my own value, so I'll substitue such recognition and evaluation with a preference for skin color."

I am not going to argue too much about that. I just stated how I work and my suspicion that many others do too. I also think I gave a quite good example of where I might use skin color as an input for desicion. Statistically I am right. Statistically I save not only my time by this but others too. But as an excerise in improving on myself I'll do the opposite next time!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Predominantly human.

Wow. You're so deep and superior. Actually humanity is subdivided loosely into races. There are checkoxes where you check which one you are when you apply for school, jobs, nearly everything. You must have been drunk when you applied for your last gig.

 

[Gunny]

Ok. But I did. Chalk it up to the caprices of subjective perception.

I know this GunnyL, I was just giving you the gentlest of to make sure you got real interested.

Not lack of education. Take any mixed bunch of children who have not been taught racism, and you'll discover none of them are racists. They can distinguish between the shades of skin tone certainly, but they make no value judgments upon them--racism is taught first by parents, and then by others. Once indoctrinated into racist thought, that racism must then be unlearned. I'm certain you've had plenty of experience with this. Yet even if you wish to insist upon instinctual racism, I'll warrant that thoughtful human beings are a bit above this particular instinct in much the way they are above the instinct to shit on the front yard.

Oh, I'll certainly make accomodation for those who just don't know better because they were indoctrinated with a boatload of bullshit--and as I discuss racists, I'm not speaking of those who innocently use racist idioms in their speech (really now, I'm no racist for calling my friend a crazy cracker), but I am speaking of precisely those you describe who have the benefit, not only of education (in the unlearning of racism sense), but also of critical thought. If despite the counter education and critical examination of their surroundings someone should insist on clinging to notions that skin color has any bearing on a person's value, then that unambiguously racist individual is clearly a moron.

Well then, I think we ran out of stuff to argue about. In this thread anyway.

 

[Gunny]

I am not going to argue too much about that. I just stated how I work and my suspicion that many others do too. I also think I gave a quite good example of where I might use skin color as an input for desicion. Statistically I am right. Statistically I save not only my time by this but others too. But as an excerise in improving on myself I'll do the opposite next time!

I am assuming what you are speaking of is racial profiling. It is downright dumb to ignore it. Throw out the best evidence for identifying a suspect for political correctness.

I see no problem with identifying people who live the stereotype by that stereotype. If you're a white guy who can't dance, a "thug" , or one of the vatos locos, whatever. You are what you are. And when certain groups are known to act in a certain manner, it is not unwise to expect such behavior of them.