Paivi Rasanen

[Danllan]

What leads you to that conclusion?

The evidence.

 

[Ncap]

You are indeed a shining wit.

 

[Ncap]

..as William Spooner might have observed.

 

[Danllan]

..as William Spooner might have observed.

Yeah, I got that.

 

[The Agrarian]

Well, I've read that a couple of times now, and you've steered well clear of providing what I asked for. I didn't ask for what your prejudices are, or anyone else's, but how you would define prejudice and discrimination.


Digressing entirely, what's the significance of the Fly Agaric?


But, clearly, not with a quick wit...

In this context prejudice could be thought to be relating to the holding of an unreasonable or unjustifiable position, or opinion(s) of, or having a negative response to a person or groups of people, based on a range of normal variations in the human race, for example including but not limited to things like race, age, sex, social class, nationality, religion, health and addiction, disability, sexual orientation and so on. Prejudice can be fostered and disseminated without the explicit expression of positions or opinions. To simply refer to a person or persons as 'them', implying their identification by some of the above could be enough to represent prejudice.

For example, this occurs within Northern Ireland where people of another religion or national or political identity are referred to as the other side. Or when I've heard the Welsh refer to 'the english' in discussion, or the English to the French, or Christians to muslims. What did non-jewish Germans think about their Jewish neighbours? The Nazis may have peddled the idea that they were responsible for the failure of WW1. But the prejudice existed long before that. So what was it? I suspect it mostly could not be tied down to opinions or complaints that could be levelled consistently against a race, but not to those around them. Broad brush strokes are often a sign of underlying prejudice. Discrimination would be the outworking of prejudice, which could be manifested in a wide range of ways.

 

[Danllan]

In this context prejudice could be thought to be relating to the holding of an unreasonable or unjustifiable position, or opinion(s) of, or having a negative response to a person or groups of people, based on a range of normal variations in the human race, for example including but not limited to things like race, age, sex, social class, nationality, religion, health and addiction, disability, sexual orientation and so on. Prejudice can be fostered and disseminated without the explicit expression of positions or opinions. To simply refer to a person or persons as 'them', implying their identification by some of the above could be enough to represent prejudice.

For example, this occurs within Northern Ireland where people of another religion or national or political identity are referred to as the other side. Or when I've heard the Welsh refer to 'the english' in discussion, or the English to the French, or Christians to muslims. What did non-jewish Germans think about their Jewish neighbours? The Nazis may have peddled the idea that they were responsible for the failure of WW1. But the prejudice existed long before that. So what was it? I suspect it mostly could not be tied down to opinions or complaints that could be levelled consistently against a race, but not to those around them. Broad brush strokes are often a sign of underlying prejudice. Discrimination would be the outworking of prejudice, which could be manifested in a wide range of ways.

Thank you; on the basis of that it seems fair to write that you class prejudice and discrimination as negative things, is that correct?

 

[The Agrarian]

It may seem that way to those on the receiving end.

 

[Ashtree]

It may seem that way to those on the receiving end.

You’re not trying to tell most of us on here something by any chance?

 

[Danllan]

It may seem that way to those on the receiving end.

Well that's about as nebulous a statement as any I've seen. Let's have a think and apply some rationality to the subject...

Prejudice is the deciding on a matter without have good reason to do so, to pre-judge; discrimination can mean either treating people unfairly based on whatever argument, or perceiving a difference between things and acting accordingly.

I would argue that in a great many cases, maybe a large majority, the word prejudice is not correctly used. If people have experience, or know people who have had experience, or have access to information from a reliable third party, and act rationally according to it, no matter what some may claim, it won't be prejudice it will be applying common sense.

For example, let's take that loverly group of living saints, Irish Travellers here in the UK, aka, pikies, or sometimes 'the knackers', and me. I choose myself as an example, but could have chosen any number of others. I have met many hundreds of them, maybe thousands, both by being in Ag since a child and then in the CJS. Out of all of these people I can only think of two who were what we could probably agree as being 'honest'. The others, men, women and children were not 'misunderstood' by me, they were well understood and they have all be thieves and liars, and most of the men have been potentially or actually violent. Of course you may say my view is skewed because I met so many in the CJS. But friends who are teachers, doctors etc. have given me the same story.

So now I certainly don't give these people the benefit of the doubt, I am on my guard with all of them from the start. Some idiots will call that prejudice, everyone else will call it common sense.

As for 'discrimination', I think the latter definition is that applicable to most people most of the time. There is a going to be a big difference between the way you act with, for instance, a stockbroker who you have approached and know to be of good standing, and the Nigerian fellow who cold calls you with the chance to buy into a truly fantastic business opportunity just outside Lagos. Is saying 'No!' and putting the 'phone down on such a fellow 'racist', of course not, it's the application of common sense, and discrimination.

Wokey types have latched on to these two words, among others, and tried to hijack their meanings, just as they have 'offended' - which for their purposes doesn't usually mean to affront but, rather, to challenge their ideas in a way they can't counter.

It's not going to work.

 

[The Agrarian]

Nebulous! Yes I'll take that description, because life is anything but black and white. Things are best judged on their own merits.

I'm not immune to having prejudice against travellers either. It's hardly the best example to use though, and can hardly be set against that of putting blacks to the back of the bus because of the colour of their skin. Why? Well, the time most of us meet travellers (certainly the only time in my case) is when they enter our property uninvited to try to pressure sell something we don't want to buy, or pressure buy something we don't want to sell, and meanwhile taking a good look around them on the way in and out. And experience suggests they can be aggressive. This is not a neutral situation. The invader creates fear by their intrusive and aggressive behaviour. Therefore, we aren't really responding on an unfounded basis of class or race, but to realtime behaviour. If a person from your or my perceived ethnic group behaved in this way, we would feel much the same about it.

Likewise, the stockbroker/Nigerian example is based upon trusted sources/relationships, and not upon race or nationality.

This is in complete contrast to, for example, disallowing gay persons from serving in the armed forces because they are gay. The gay person is not bringing trouble to your door. They aren't likely to bring the service into disrepute on a greater level than straight personnel, and they aren't less capable of carrying out tasks and bearing responsibility than straight people.

Something worth noting is that we are still moving from an historic place of discriminations of all sorts. Much has been dealt with, but because of history, there is still a burden on society to repair wrongs and go the extra mile to ensure the message against unreasonable prejudice is cemented, and that the prejudiced education (and I don't necessarily mean school) you and I likely received is not repeated in new generations.

 

[Danllan]

Nebulous! Yes I'll take that description, because life is anything but black and white. Things are best judged on their own merits.

I'm not immune to having prejudice against travellers either. It's hardly the best example to use though, and can hardly be set against that of putting blacks to the back of the bus because of the colour of their skin. Why? Well, the time most of us meet travellers (certainly the only time in my case) is when they enter our property uninvited to try to pressure sell something we don't want to buy, or pressure buy something we don't want to sell, and meanwhile taking a good look around them on the way in and out. And experience suggests they can be aggressive. This is not a neutral situation. The invader creates fear by their intrusive and aggressive behaviour. Therefore, we aren't really responding on an unfounded basis of class or race, but to realtime behaviour. If a person from your or my perceived ethnic group behaved in this way, we would feel much the same about it.

Likewise, the stockbroker/Nigerian example is based upon trusted sources/relationships, and not upon race or nationality.

This is in complete contrast to, for example, disallowing gay persons from serving in the armed forces because they are gay. The gay person is not bringing trouble to your door. They aren't likely to bring the service into disrepute on a greater level than straight personnel, and they aren't less capable of carrying out tasks and bearing responsibility than straight people.

Something worth noting is that we are still moving from an historic place of discriminations of all sorts. Much has been dealt with, but because of history, there is still a burden on society to repair wrongs and go the extra mile to ensure the message against unreasonable prejudice is cemented, and that the prejudiced education (and I don't necessarily mean school) you and I likely received is not repeated in new generations.

Hmm... you seem to be missing my point - maybe deliberately - that a huge amount of what is called 'prejudice' by those wishing to benefit from such a description, is termed so for just that reason.

 

[The Agrarian]

There will always be insincere or dishonest people who will find it useful to play on an opportunity like that. However, that's never going to be a reason to not fight real prejudice and discrimination.

 

[Mouser]

Very interesting discussion this, genuinely, and I don't want to make it another COVID thread but I find your views very contrasting compared to the impression given by both your posts about 'the unvaccinated' in other threads. 'Pre-judged without basis' and 'unjustified negative views' were 2 phrases that made me raise an eyebrow.

 

[The Agrarian]

You'll need to expand a bit.

 

[The Agrarian]

@Danllan Rather than having overdone antiprejudice, the various incidents at the met, including the recent Charing Cross revelations which have helped to bring down the commissioner, suggest there is clearly much work still to do. The IPOC reported stated that they were not isolated incidents, but indicative of a culture of racism, misogyny etc If the capital's police force has not yet got the message about harmful prejudice, this isn't yet the time to slack off on the education.

 

[Danllan]

I

@Danllan Rather than having overdone antiprejudice, the various incidents at the met, including the recent Charing Cross revelations which have helped to bring down the commissioner, suggest there is clearly much work still to do. The IPOC reported stated that they were not isolated incidents, but indicative of a culture of racism, misogyny etc If the capital's police force has not yet got the message about harmful prejudice, this isn't yet the time to slack off on the education.

Read the reports, look at who wrote them, and ask the obvious question 'What is their agenda?'

 

[alex04w]

I see the Finnish MP has been cleared on all charges.

Finnish Christian MP who quoted Bible cleared of 'hate speech' charges

A Christian politician in Finland has been acquitted of “hate speech” for sharing the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality.

www.christian.org.uk

 

[peclova]

I see the Finnish MP has been cleared on all charges.

Finnish Christian MP who quoted Bible cleared of 'hate speech' charges

A Christian politician in Finland has been acquitted of “hate speech” for sharing the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality.

www.christian.org.uk

Common sense prevails!

 

[peclova]

I see the Finnish MP has been cleared on all charges.

Finnish Christian MP who quoted Bible cleared of 'hate speech' charges

A Christian politician in Finland has been acquitted of “hate speech” for sharing the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality.

www.christian.org.uk

Common sense prevails!

 

[The Agrarian]

There seem to be two different questions here. What should constitute hate speech, and should hate speech be a prosecutable offence.