@Baden It seems to me your are just using bigotry,and saying "look,I'm not racist, I'm better than blatant racists".
Being a trump supporter or Democrat doesn't carte blanche mean you have the right to be prejudiced. That's just an excuse. There is no reason to be prejudiced unless its clear what a person's behaviour is. A murderer,rapist,arsonist,etc,etc. I read all the vitriol last year from Democrats and republicans,and both sides can be bigoted. Mostly those with big mouths and online platforms.
And of course,there is racial prejudice as well,on both sides.

I think it's mostly a semantic discussion to be honest. — Benkei

:rofl: You think?

@Banno Most ironic thing is a lot of philosophers in the Canon were blatantly racially prejudiced.
Your quote is just an Elitist philosopher saying dont you dare use your own mind,follow tradition,AKA,us elites.
And funny,when it suits you language turns to something else.
How convenient.

Everyone is prejudiced in some way, dude. It's hardly possible not to be. Not being racist is a lot easier.

It's an elitist philosopher saying "express yourself clearly".

But if you choose the Humpty Dumpty theory of meaning, then words can mean whatever you choose, and no one will have any idea what you mean.

Which will doubtless suit your purposes.

@BitconnectCarlos Without a doubt any sane person would pick his close Family above all else.
As for "ethnic" or "religious" grouping me personally no.
I feel most comfortable amongst people I consider honest and genuine regardless of race religion or nationality.

@Banno Funny how it's clear what my position is.
Yet you want to differentiate as to make prejudice acceptable or some lesser sin.

Yet you want to differentiate as to make prejudice acceptable or some lesser sin. — Zenny

Without a doubt any sane person would pick his close Family above all else. — Zenny

That's a form of prejudice.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying that most people would describe a prejudiced person as racist where I come from. So then a sentence like "black people can't be racist" becomes mind boggling to them.

Funny how it's clear what my position is. — Zenny

Is it? I don't think so. The distinction is historical. Your desire to blur it is what is new, your position eccentric.

@Baden In your topsy Turvey world.
Family is a prejudice!
That is the best nonsense comment I've heard since I did not have relations with that woman.
So your Family. You've never met them baden? You judged them before you met them?
Jesus christ this is dumb!

@Banno Read benkeis Post above. Obviously doesn't seem to be historical in the Netherlands.
@Benkei

That is the best nonsense comment I've heard since I did not have relations with that woman. — Zenny

:lol:



In the widest sense of the word, having an uninformed bias against people on the basis that they are not related to you is a prejudice, yes. It's also a (more or less) acceptable prejudice in my view.

@Baden Absolute sophistry. A mockery of words.
So this renders pretty much any relationship with anyone a "prejudice"?

This is what I was getting at earlier. There are such mild and natural forms of prejudice we all experience, it's pretty fucking stupid to try to make an equivalence between these and racism.

Come on @Banno,are you seeing @Baden with his outlandish eccentricity of words?
Or have you gone silent about the linguistic and behavioural sins of any but those you are prejudiced against?

Come on Banno,are you seeing @Baden with his outlandish eccentricity of words? — Zenny

Oh, Banno, Banno, where art thou Banno? :eyes:

Indeed. But once again, given the distinction provided here between prejudice and racism, what exactly is your problem with the distinction? The distinction is introduced to tell harmful prejudice from "benign" prejudice and harmful prejudice is then labelled "racism". If all you're objecting to is language use, that's fine but not very interesting or philosophically relevant and no grounds to claim some type of new racism is running amok.

What do you think the differentiation offered here is and why do you think it's wrong?

@Baden Who the hell said I agree with your sophist definition of prejudice to even include Family.
So everything is prejudice now? Get our of town mate. That's nonsense,and you know it.

Get out of town mate. — Zenny

I suppose you only like people from your own town, don't you?

Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

I take thee at thy word:

He's from the word police, I think you're allowed to say you're biased in favour of your family but that's not yet prejudice.

@Benkei Because it allows people to hide their bigotry and Racism under the guise of being just prejudiced.
I mean people say black people can't be racist in the US only prejudiced. That's a form of racism. Not hard to understand really.

@Benkei Biased in favour of Family! Wow. Your hilarious.
So now bias has no meaning either.
Wittgenstein and banno have dropped dead on the ice!

@Baden Nope,I judge people as I meet them through behaviour,not the town they inhabit. Run out of ideas mate?

How is it hidden if the definitions of how the words are used are spelled out repeatedly for you? It's available to everyone. If you want, consider it a game, in this thread when you say prejudice it means xyz and when you say racism it means abc.

I really don't get the problem here. When people try to explicate ideas, given additional facts, information and insights, and do so by adjusting definitions this isn't racism but an attempt to have language better describe the reality they are experiencing.

Honestly, based on your grammar and spelling I just think your English isn't good enough.

@Benkei You mean based on your reading habits and comprehension skills!
The problem is glaring. Myself and others have said these definitions are dubious. You admit yourself in Holland people are puzzled. All races can be racis,fact. But you want to move the goalposts over to your politics to make it seem prejudice is totally different.

Racism as an attitude is not exclusive to, or of, any one group (I don't believe anyone argued for that), but accusations of racism must always be contextualized.

@Baden Of course. But what contextualisation?
Whether it's backed by institutional power or individual? Because both are racism.

Whatever contextualisation is relevant. The context of the original comment was 180 complaining about a group not because they're white but because of their attitudes and behaviours.