Poll: Will we ever see the end of prejudice?

[ZonerZ]

no, some parents teach their children to become prejudice at a very young age and when you're beliefs are ingrained in you at an early age, you tend to hold on to them and teach them to your children. and so, the cycle is perpetuated.

I agree.

My mother tried very hard raising both me and my brother racist. While he succumbed whole-heartily, it was only through my suspicion of how she seemed to know everything that I managed to disregard whatever she said. Today, out of the eight best friends I talk to on a daily basis, three are black and one is Asian. Some day, with hope, others will realize the irony that the only people that shouldn't be tolerated are the intolerant.

 

[werepossum]

No.

More importantly, it shouldn't.

It is impossible (let me emphasise that, impossible) to assess every single person you come across as an individual. You simply don't have the time. Nor would you have the resources nor the inclination. The simple fact is, the most assessment you'll have to do in your day-to-day is whether someone is a threat or not, and prejudices serve well there.

Prejudice and its bastard cousin, stereotypes, continue to exist for a reason - they are constantly validated. If a stereotype wasn't accurate at least 51% of the time, it would cease to exist as a stereotype.

The first part of that is pretty profound; I'd add only two caveats. First, a lot of the time we judge people when there's no need. If I pass on the street a kid with his pants hanging below his ass-cheeks, nasty hair, blue ink prison tats, etc. it makes no real difference to me if he's a gang-banger, welfare bum, or pre-med student. I'm just passing him on the street. If I'm hiring a baby-sitter, THEN I can judge him. That way I can concentrate all my judgment resources where they are most useful. Second, our prejudices don't tell us anything useful about an individual. If for instance I read that Pakistani doctors are dangerously under-trained and in my emergency room visit draw a doctor of Pakistani ethnicity, my prejudice tells me nothing useful about that particular doctor even if it is based on fact, and prejudices usually aren't. In avoiding all Pakistani doctors, I've also passed up the good Pakistani doctors, much as how a cat who has leaped onto a hot oven door will never again leap onto a hot over door, but neither will he leap onto a cold oven door. (And I don't have any negative information about Pakistani doctors, I'm just making up an example.) Certainly a prejudice can be useful when it tells you to exercise a little more caution, but it can also play you false - while you are watching that black kid with the droopy pants, that white man hopped up on PCP may stab you in the back.

As to the second part, stereotypes need only a seed of truth, not nearly 51%, and that seed can be long obsolete. There's a stereotype in the USA that black people are lazy, which stems from slavery. If I'm a slave, working harder nets me and my family little or no additional benefit, it benefits someone I quite likely hate. As a slave, my goal in life is to work as little as possible without being punished. Therefore we have a persistent stereotype of blacks as being lazy more than a hundred years after the end of slavery. Even the decades between the abolishment of slavery and the civil rights gains in the sixties and seventies - when it is unarguable that blacks had to work harder to achieve the same level of prosperity as whites due to Jim Crow laws, legal restrictions, and bigotry - weren't enough to erase the stereotype of blacks being lazy as long as it allowed some whites to feel better about themselves. (Hell, even the stereotype of Jamaicans all working 23 a day hasn't phased it.) Thus I would argue that while all stereotypes have or once had some grain of substance, a majority statistical basis in reality isn't required as long as the stereotype fits a pre-conceived notion, serves some purpose for the believer (i.e. makes him feel superior or grants him justification in discrimination), or is justified by even a tiny fraction of the group. To continue the example, knowing one lazy black man out of ten may perpetuate the prejudice of lazy black people even if you know five lazy white men out of ten, as long as that prejudice serves some purpose to you.

 

[Death Magnetic]

[irony]No because of the stupid garlic-eating French[/irony]

Back on topic: No because so long as were not equally identical in every factor possible and we are populous, some one will posess the arrogance of thinking they're better than another, even if they don't speak of these thoughts people will still think of thses prejudices of the differences in people.

 

[BlueMage]

One more thing... to all the negative sourheads in the thread: cynicism went out of style a long time ago. Anyone can babble negativity about how mankind sucks and how everything is coming apart. It's nothign the first step to becoming that pissy old fart at the retirment home sitting there muttering angrilly about how "things used to be better".

Cynics and other pessimists (and no, don't give me that "no I'm a realist" crap because you're not... you're being a pissy, grumpy, unobjective grouch) are not unique or different in any way. It's perfectly mainstream to be a cynic and has been so for a long time. If you want to stand out today, dare to have a bit of hope and try making an objective analysis as to where we are heading.

/S

You seem to think I say this merely to stand out friend. I simply point out the truth. If the truth were different, so too would be my post.

Regarding pitbulls, I'm well aware they're not aggressive - but the fact that they are portrayed as such (and stereotypically believed to be so) does not in any way diminish the survival aspect of such a prejudice. If a person assumes a dog is aggressive - even if it's not - that person is less likely to be attacked as they are less likely to put themselves in a position where they could be attacked.

I also have no doubt that in time such a stereotype will fade as more people do become enlightened. 51% of the time, remember? For now, what has been shown to the public is indeed greater than 51% of the time, but as time goes on, that shall change.

 

[BlueMage]

No.

More importantly, it shouldn't.

It is impossible (let me emphasise that, impossible) to assess every single person you come across as an individual. You simply don't have the time. Nor would you have the resources nor the inclination. The simple fact is, the most assessment you'll have to do in your day-to-day is whether someone is a threat or not, and prejudices serve well there.

Prejudice and its bastard cousin, stereotypes, continue to exist for a reason - they are constantly validated. If a stereotype wasn't accurate at least 51% of the time, it would cease to exist as a stereotype.

The first part of that is pretty profound; I'd add only two caveats. First, a lot of the time we judge people when there's no need. If I pass on the street a kid with his pants hanging below his ass-cheeks, nasty hair, blue ink prison tats, etc. it makes no real difference to me if he's a gang-banger, welfare bum, or pre-med student. I'm just passing him on the street. If I'm hiring a baby-sitter, THEN I can judge him. That way I can concentrate all my judgment resources where they are most useful. Second, our prejudices don't tell us anything useful about an individual. If for instance I read that Pakistani doctors are dangerously under-trained and in my emergency room visit draw a doctor of Pakistani ethnicity, my prejudice tells me nothing useful about that particular doctor even if it is based on fact, and prejudices usually aren't. In avoiding all Pakistani doctors, I've also passed up the good Pakistani doctors, much as how a cat who has leaped onto a hot oven door will never again leap onto a hot over door, but neither will he leap onto a cold oven door. (And I don't have any negative information about Pakistani doctors, I'm just making up an example.) Certainly a prejudice can be useful when it tells you to exercise a little more caution, but it can also play you false - while you are watching that black kid with the droopy pants, that white man hopped up on PCP may stab you in the back.

Ah friend, but that's where I say the most judgement most require is into either "threat" or "currently non-threat" status, so if the black kid presents no immediate threat, he is classified and forgotten, and the next subject gets classified.

Granted, I'm not particularly paranoid, so I don't constantly look over my shoulder, so I likely wouldn't see the PCP-mad guy in your scenario until too late. But the theory holds.

As to the second part, stereotypes need only a seed of truth, not nearly 51%, and that seed can be long obsolete. There's a stereotype in the USA that black people are lazy, which stems from slavery. If I'm a slave, working harder nets me and my family little or no additional benefit, it benefits someone I quite likely hate. As a slave, my goal in life is to work as little as possible without being punished. Therefore we have a persistent stereotype of blacks as being lazy more than a hundred years after the end of slavery. Even the decades between the abolishment of slavery and the civil rights gains in the sixties and seventies - when it is unarguable that blacks had to work harder to achieve the same level of prosperity as whites due to Jim Crow laws, legal restrictions, and bigotry - weren't enough to erase the stereotype of blacks being lazy as long as it allowed some whites to feel better about themselves. (Hell, even the stereotype of Jamaicans all working 23 a day hasn't phased it.) Thus I would argue that while all stereotypes have or once had some grain of substance, a majority statistical basis in reality isn't required as long as the stereotype fits a pre-conceived notion, serves some purpose for the believer (i.e. makes him feel superior or grants him justification in discrimination), or is justified by even a tiny fraction of the group. To continue the example, knowing one lazy black man out of ten may perpetuate the prejudice of lazy black people even if you know five lazy white men out of ten, as long as that prejudice serves some purpose to you.

Well, going with the fact that I assume all people are lazy by nature and some merely get away with it better ... the path of least resistance, no?

I also admit, in my scenario there is an assumption of intellectual honesty - that where demonstrated to be wrong, an individual is man enough to admit as much and change their tune to reflect their new-found knowledge. In situations where people refuse to do so, then yes, the slightest hint of truth validates an otherwise erroneous belief.

 

[Sayvara]

You seem to think I say this merely to stand out friend. I simply point out the truth. If the truth were different, so too would be my post.

Oh how humble of you.

No, that's not truth, that's your opinion. Never mix up the two. My opinion is that your opinion is a load of croc... ,my opinion is that such cynicism is either for the purpose of seeking attention or for being plain lazy since it takes more energy and work to judge things for what you see in them instead of just going "Bugger all".

/S

 

[Dance The Revolution]

If for instance I read that Pakistani doctors are dangerously under-trained and in my emergency room visit draw a doctor of Pakistani ethnicity, my prejudice tells me nothing useful about that particular doctor even if it is based on fact, and prejudices usually aren't. In avoiding all Pakistani doctors, I've also passed up the good Pakistani doctors, much as how a cat who has leaped onto a hot oven door will never again leap onto a hot over door, but neither will he leap onto a cold oven door. (And I don't have any negative information about Pakistani doctors, I'm just making up an example.)

So basically...You're as dumb intelligent as a cat?

Says the one with the cat in for an avatar.

Just kidding, you're great.

 

[Dance The Revolution]

You seem to think I say this merely to stand out friend. I simply point out the truth. If the truth were different, so too would be my post.

Oh how humble of you.

No, that's not truth, that's your opinion. Never mix up the two. My opinion is that your opinion is a load of croc... ,my opinion is that such cynicism is either for the purpose of seeking attention or for being plain lazy since it takes more energy and work to judge things for what you see in them instead of just going "Bugger all".

/S

That's not an opinion you're spouting out. What you are saying is not true. Try to learn the difference.

I mean the cynicism part. Some people are cynical 'cause that is how they were brought up in the world or experienced certain things in life that to them was 'nough of a cause to be cynical (I'll rephrase if it isn't understandable.). Y'know, all that stuff that shape your personality, genes and experiences. That is a fact by the way.

Shit. Some people may argue it is hard to be cynical.

 

[Altorin]

All we can hope for is that when it comes to business, people will be treated fairly, but as human beings it's in our nature to be xenophobic.

 

[BlueMage]

You seem to think I say this merely to stand out friend. I simply point out the truth. If the truth were different, so too would be my post.

Oh how humble of you.

Humility has nothing to do with it.

No, that's not truth, that's your opinion. Never mix up the two. My opinion is that your opinion is a load of croc... ,my opinion is that such cynicism is either for the purpose of seeking attention or for being plain lazy since it takes more energy and work to judge things for what you see in them instead of just going "Bugger all".

/S

Then we have reached a conclusion: You are wrong. You may return to this conversation when you are ready to factor in new information and alter your ... 'opinion' thereof.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

No. We are progamed to be scared of the unfamiliar. End of story.

 

[Eyclonus]

Yes...when we existinguish all sentient life.

...Yeah i was about to agree then i noticed it said "Will we(I assume as in humanity in general)ever SEE the end" so it would be the end but no one to see it.

Unless we're wiped out like Neville Shute's novel "On the Beach". Those people saw the end of prejudice, a coke bottle rattling on a telegraph machine...

 

[Solo508]

No we won't. Its part of being human, what really matters is keeping an open mind towards people, i'm not encouraging you to go befriending drug addicts or anything like that. Just try to see past prejudices and don't worry if its hard sometimes, like i said, its human.

 

[werepossum]

If for instance I read that Pakistani doctors are dangerously under-trained and in my emergency room visit draw a doctor of Pakistani ethnicity, my prejudice tells me nothing useful about that particular doctor even if it is based on fact, and prejudices usually aren't. In avoiding all Pakistani doctors, I've also passed up the good Pakistani doctors, much as how a cat who has leaped onto a hot oven door will never again leap onto a hot over door, but neither will he leap onto a cold oven door. (And I don't have any negative information about Pakistani doctors, I'm just making up an example.)

So basically...You're as dumb intelligent as a cat?

If I judge a person based on a stereotype of a group, then yes, exactly as intelligent as a cat who's been burned by an oven door and therefore assumes that all oven doors are hot. Perhaps an example in an example was too hard to follow (or evidence of catlike intelligence, your pick.)

Bluemage, I agree totally about the threat/non-threat categories, but I'd add 'food' and 'sex' too. Agree totally about stereotyping the whole human species and working your way down to individuals.

Bored Tomatoe, we are programmed to be wary of the unfamiliar, but also (again like cats) also attracted to it. If a man sees a woman of a skin color new to him, he may be cautious to make sure it's not because of a disease or that women that color are otherwise dangerous. Then he'll try to screw her.

 

[dalek sec]

The only ways something like this will ever happen is that either mankind is removed from the planet for good or some kind of mind control on every single person on the planet but it's pretty much slavery reguardless of what it fixes.

 

[BlueMage]

Bluemage, I agree totally about the threat/non-threat categories, but I'd add 'food' and 'sex' too. Agree totally about stereotyping the whole human species and working your way down to individuals.

Except I'm quite happy in my current relationship and a picky eater to boot

 

[nick_knack]

Humans as we are today, will never move beyond prejudice.
However I read a very interesting article in Popular Science the other day, about humans ditching our biological brain buckets, in favour of electronic ones.

This presented me with the simple idea that we could evolve ourselves, perhaps writing out prejudice (And the biological need for it, as we are all transformers) in the process.

But I doubt it.

 

[Iron Mal]

One thing I should point out, even if we all suddenly decided to just have a fair and equal society then it would still be unfair and biased. A truely non-prejudice society would have to accept everyones views and beliefs, this would have to include groups like the Nazis and the KKK as well (groups with very prejudice views) or it would be discriminating against them. This would of course lead to the problem of inciting further prejudice in society because of what they think meaning we would be right back where we are.

 

[maximilian]

Philosophically, we could say that prejudice is the conscious negative associative towards anything defined as a unique entity - ie. itself. If you take this and strip it down more, you could claim that anything defined as itself is at odds with another thing, purely because they are not the same. However, negative association is the kicker. Then we have to look at the way they interact. Generally, one entity will conflict with another (due to differences), creating a paradigm of conflict. Conflict is a negative force, and the law of non-contradiction applies. Because you are not ME, we will be at odds. We can never fully agree, because we are not the same thing and therefore we cannot be together. Therefore, prejudice is not so much an active thing, but a by product of different entities.

What this looks like in the world is racism etc. So, we can moderate it as such by destroying anything that is not the same - i.e. have a purely white nation, BUT once conflict arises in that, you would have to keep pruning until the only person left in the world was you. THEN apply this to EVERY entity and you have a person at odds with the world. You may not LIKE carrots, therefore you will be prejudice and NOT eat them. As a result of this, hypothetically you will slowly ignore or destroy things that are of no use to you (or be "prejudice"). You would do this until you only had things that please you. Now, if you use something that pleases you, you become bored of it (which is why we don't eat chocolate for every meal). We would want different things. You can apply this theory until the only thing left is you, existing alone in an unknown environment. If we want to go super theoretical, you could stipulate that your decomposition and death is a product of you being at odds with the natural world. In the end, you die. IPSO FACTO no. Prejudice will never end.

Of course, you could go the sunnier, less meta route and say that tolerance is an ability and while you may not be happy, you won't actively discriminate. Then yeah, I guess, but again, in a perfect world.

Anyway, this isn't cynicism, this is the reality of the world. Do you think humanity had these types of discussions in one form or another in neanderthal times - think so!