Explorations of confinement.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm prejudiced against huge, screaming, hairy people who run toward me waving machettes.

I'm prejudiced against people I find in my car, trying to get the engine started

I'm prejudiced against anyone who has a criminal record for child molesting that I see hanging around outside a school.

And I'm prejudiced against people who wear cult of christ paraphanellia and look like they mean it or, worse still, try to drag a conversation onto the subject then preach complete fucking nonsense at me til I'm forced to render them unconscious.

There is such a thing as too liberal.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm prejudiced against huge, screaming, hairy people who run toward me waving machettes.

I'm prejudiced against people I find in my car, trying to get the engine started

I'm prejudiced against anyone who has a criminal record for child molesting that I see hanging around outside a school.

And I'm prejudiced against people who wear cult of christ paraphanellia and look like they mean it or, worse still, try to drag a conversation onto the subject then preach complete fucking nonsense at me til I'm forced to render them unconscious.

There is such a thing as too liberal.

I disagree... in each of these situations, you're basing your decision on the ACTIONS of the individual, not some label of identity.

So if you said "I'm prejudiced against anyone ever convicted of 'sexual crimes'," I could see that as prejudice, because you're assuming that your interactions with ALL people convicted of sexual crimes will be similar. However, you're talking about people in that group that are, through ACTION, providing more information about themselves specifically. You're not judging the person, but rather the action...

Same for "Any Christian" vs. "preachy crazy cultist Christians", or "Inner City Minority" vs, "Dude who is jacking my car".

[P3nT4gR4m]

fair point

[Cramulus]

I disagree, Rat. One certainly can be prejudiced about certain actions (as opposed to basing it on "identiy label"). For example if I'm hiring someone for a job, I certainly am going to be prejudiced his about education, whether or not he's been to prison, etc. (I guess you could argue that those are actions and not labels?) I might also be racially prejudiced, and that's the same thing.

Everyone has prejudices, otherwise they'd be constantly wracked with indecision. You pre-judge things a zillion times a day. Prejudice isn't a bad thing, it's a survival skill - otherwise you'd have to drink the regular coffee AND the decaf to make a decision about them.

The danger is when you extend pre-judgements onto large groups of people whom the judgements may not fit. That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land, or that every single black person in Detroit is actively trying to rape you.



by the way,
I have some prejudices about hot girls, especially curvaceous blondes.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I disagree, Rat. One certainly can be prejudiced about certain actions (as opposed to basing it on "identiy label"). For example if I'm hiring someone for a job, I certainly am going to be prejudiced his about education, whether or not he's been to prison, etc. (I guess you could argue that those are actions and not labels?) I might also be racially prejudiced, and that's the same thing.

Well, in that case, I think it depends on the job. If you're trying to cast Kente Kunti, you probably should pre-judge the actor on skin color, because a blackface Kente might go over... poorly. If however, you're looking for an employee to run the tin whistle making machine, then pre-judging based on race would appear prejudice. The same for education... if the job requires a degree, then I wouldn't consider it prejudiced to not interview people that don't meet the requirements for the job.

Everyone has prejudices, otherwise they'd be constantly wracked with indecision. You pre-judge things a zillion times a day. Prejudice isn't a bad thing, it's a survival skill - otherwise you'd have to drink the regular coffee AND the decaf to make a decision about them.

I'm not sure the prejudice and personal preference are the same thing. For example, I drink coffee, specifically because I want the caffeine. Decaf, doesn't meet the requirements for the drink (just as a Anglo actor wouldn't meet the requirements for our friend from Roots).

I would say that prejudice,  making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts, is different than preference and different still than qualifications.

If preference and qualifications were no created based on any relevant facts... then I would agree that it could be considered prejudice.

So to tie back to the OP... if LMNO's band played "Sympathy For the Devil",. "Kill Jesus", "Please Satan, Come Possess Me", "Let's Kill The Pastor" or other songs that were anti-Christian, then perhaps a qualification for being in the band, would be a dislike of Christianity. The fellows religion would not meet the qualification...





The danger is when you extend pre-judgements onto large groups of people whom the judgements may not fit. That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land, or that every single black person in Detroit is actively trying to rape you.



by the way,
I have some prejudices about hot girls, especially curvaceous blondes.




[/quote]

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land,

Wait, they're not?

[Cramulus]

I think we're using the word differnetly here, Rat. I think you're using it to mean "bad prejudging", but I'm trying to clarify that not all prejudice is 'bad'. It's typically used to talk about race, gender, ethnic, sexual identity, age, and religion... prejudice relating to these topics is bad, but it would be going too far to say that ALL prejudice is bad.

Just to underscore my point:

Cognitive Prejudice refers to what people believe is true. An example of cognitive prejudice might be found, for example, adherence to a particular metaphysical or methodological philosophy to the exclusion of other philosophies that may offer a more complete theoretical explanation.

so like - unless you believe everything at the same time, you're prejudiced. Is that bad? Not usually.

The word Discrimination suffers from the same halo effect. We use it to talk about race (or whatever), but it's a totally commonplace and generally neutral thing.


I think we're both in agreement though that the bad stuff comes from rigidity and irrationality in applying prejudice and discrimination.

That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land,

Wait, they're not?

let me clarify:

I'm trying to take your land. Not all white men are.

Off the top of my head, I can probably think of three or four guys who aren't taking your land.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land,

Wait, they're not?

let me clarify:

I'm trying to take your land. Not all white men are.

Off the top of my head, I can probably think of three or four guys who aren't taking your land.

Well, fuck those guys. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think we're using the word differnetly here, Rat. I think you're using it to mean "bad prejudging", but I'm trying to clarify that not all prejudice is 'bad'. It's typically used to talk about race, gender, ethnic, sexual identity, age, and religion... prejudice relating to these topics is bad, but it would be going too far to say that ALL prejudice is bad.

I thought about that... but the more I think about it, the less I'm inclined to agree. Prejudice, even in a more benign form still, in my opinion, appears to indicate judgment prior to having the facts of a situation. In another metaphor, maybe we could call it belief... and I'm not much a fan of that either

Just to underscore my point:

Cognitive Prejudice refers to what people believe is true. An example of cognitive prejudice might be found, for example, adherence to a particular metaphysical or methodological philosophy to the exclusion of other philosophies that may offer a more complete theoretical explanation.

so like - unless you believe everything at the same time, you're prejudiced. Is that bad? Not usually.

I think you might be reading something that isn't there... Prejudice, as mentioned there... is adherence to a belief to the exclusion of other philosophies. Dawkins, Falwell and that dumbass gaybashing preacher are all examples of such prejudice.

And again, with the belief. Ick.

I think we're both in agreement though that the bad stuff comes from rigidity and irrationality in applying prejudice and discrimination.

Indeed. But, if prejudice is making a decision before having the pertinent facts, how could it not be irrational?

[Cramulus]

because sometimes it's not necessary to collect a lot of data before making the decision. You'll never have all the pertinent facts anyway.


alright let's look at it this way. You (the general you, not you Ratatosk) go to the movie rental place and walk around, scanning for anything that catches your interest. You look at the new releases first, then maybe the comedy aisle. You picked a movie and left. You didn't even walk down the horror isle. Is that prejudice?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

because sometimes it's not necessary to collect a lot of data before making the decision. You'll never have all the pertinent facts anyway.


alright let's look at it this way. You (the general you, not you Ratatosk) go to the movie rental place and walk around, scanning for anything that catches your interest. You look at the new releases first, then maybe the comedy aisle. You picked a movie and left. You didn't even walk down the horror isle. Is that prejudice?

Depends... if the reason you didn't go down the horror aisle was because you think "All horror movies are lame and teh suck", then sure, I'd consider that prejudice. If, however, the reason you didn't go down the horror aisle was because you were in the mood for a comedy, then that seems more like preference, than prejudice. If the reason you picked the comedy was because it was the first thing you saw, then maybe I'd call that being lazy , but not prejudiced.

I guess the question would be Are you judging the horror movies before walking down the aisle, or are you simply not considering them because you found something you liked, or you found something that met your requirements (ie the WOMP HQ gang said either bring back a comedy or we will hang your underpants on the flagpole.)

Making a decision about X doesn't necessarily mean that you're prejudiced against everything that isn't X. It might mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that, in my opinion.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that there is a significant difference between prejudice and discrimination.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that there is a significant difference between prejudice and discrimination.

I agree, what do you see as the difference?

[Cain]

I have a discriminating taste in alcohol and women, not a prejudiced one.

[LMNO]

Heh.

Rat, I think Cram seems to be saying (to me, at least)* that for him, the concept of "prejudice" is similar to the "Reality Grids" of RAW.

That is, in order to function and survive as humans, we have to make assumptions, and employ pre-conceptions when we encounter a new situation.

Some of these are based upon rational thought and experience, and could be considered "good".

Some of these are based upone hearsay, ignorance, and misinformation, and could be considered "bad".



























*How's that for E-Priming a motherfucker?