Is a prejudice against a certain type of person still wrong if the majority (if not all) of your experiences with that type of person were unpleasant?

Since people’s attitudes are not dictated by their skin color or ethnic background, yes, it’s still wrong.

It’s wrong unless you are classifying sex offenders, mass murderers, serial killers, women who wear too much perfume, and cannibals as a coherent group.

First point – it is always wrong to judge a group based on the actions of an individual or individuals within that group, because it completely diminishes the role of the individual. Dr. King said it best when he said we should judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.

Second point – correlation does not equal causation. You could find 100 out of 100 race x people were jerks, that would be a strong correlation, but you what is the cause of them being jerks? Maybe it’s your perception. Maybe you’re an asshole and they’re reacting to you. Maybe each has an individual reason to resent or dislike you. Maybe they’re all racist against your race. Maybe if you’re white and they’re black, they still harbor resentment at the centuries of oppression of their race by yours. Point is, you need more than a connection between two factors to establish a definite cause. If it wouldn’t hold up in court, it’s probably not a valid argument.

I think this needs a bit more context. What is this state of being prejudice; is it a fear? Is it general disdain? Treatment as second class individuals? What is it?

Being fearful or cautious: I’ll go ahead and say it isn’t prejudice. Uncalled for and unwarranted, yes. Prejudice, no.

Thinking of the ethnic group as subhuman or en masse resemblant of those sour experiences? Yeah. That is the act of pre-judging, making an assumption in ignorance of an entire group, labeling all as unpleasant. Foul generalizations

SHUT UP JON.

I find it much easier to simply hate everyone and like on an individual basis.

I love you Rucas.

I just wonder where personal reality (it’s happened this way 100% of the time for that person) is overruled by universal reality (which has never been a reality for the individual)

I’m not the subject of my question, for once… I need to get that out there.

There being no such thing as race, on what are your classification criteria based? As far as I know, Lysenko was discredited many years ago (and Lamarck before him). Nobody believes any more that acquired traits can be inherited, so from where are “these people” getting their shared traits?

I think this whole question reveals a profound lack of self- examination on the OP’s part. The only possible explanation for these epiphenomena is blind prejudice.

@pdworkin: Except I’m not talking about myself. Haven’t you ever wondered about something? Looked at things from another point of view?

I amend my answer to disinclude you.

The error is in considering a race to be “a certain type of person” at all. It’s a natural mistake, based on our propensity to look for patterns, but once we think we’ve identified a pattern, then confirmation bias takes over and we only notice that which seems to confirm the pattern.

Believe me… I’ve been on Fluther long enough to know that if I did have a prejudice that strong, I would be STUPID to ask about it here and make it known I felt that way

Racial prejudice is never right.

Prejudice is prejdice no matter what spin people try to put on it.
The example cited in the details of this question is racial prejudice in a classic sense of the concept.

Understandable, yes. Acceptable, no. If someone is encountering a certain trend in behavior among a certain ethnic group, it’s probably more where you live than the race itself.

Having a “negative experience” with someone can be the result of one’s preconceived expectations, so it is not fair to assume that the problem is coming from the other person.

People also don’t take into account how their preconceptions are telegraphed to others in non-verbal ways. We humans are amazingly adept at reading the attitudes of others toward us before a word is ever spoken, and the interactions will then unfold accordingly. If this person’s every encounter with this “particular type of person” is poisoned in advance by his or her non-verbal expressions of distrust or contempt, then bad interactions are to be expected.

Assholes are everywhere. Just because there is a concentration of them in one group, in one locale, does not mean that all of those people are assholes. And it certainly doesn’t mean that none in any other group are assholes.

prejudice is prejudice. you can only hold a person responcible for their own actions

The whole reason why I wondered about this is because I was simplifying it… you’re all overthinking it a bit too much.

Say someone was 40 years old, and every time they encountered a Klingon, the Klingon stepped on his foot. Is it unreasonable to think that the man would prefer to avoid Klingons if possible?

avoidance is not discriminating.

That is profiling, and it occurs under the guise of all sorts of factors, not just race. I think profiling is a good tool to use to be aware, but at the same time, no individual should be overly prejudged due to the trashiness (or whatever) of the others of his or her type.

So what does the guy do if he meets a Klingon that doesn’t step on his foot? Does he drop all prejudices against Klingons, or just against that particular Klingon?

The problem comes when you judge the content of an individual based on their appearance. Even identical twins do not have identical personalities. At the risk of having your toes stepped on, I believe you need to assume that most people you meet will not harm you.

However, don’t carry this to the point of stupidity. If you are all alone in a dark alley and a guy carrying a gun steps up to you and says “Give me your money or I’ll shoot you” you need to assume that he might indeed shoot you. However, if the guy turns out to be your brother in law and says next “Just kidding!” your judgment would have been wrong.

@Darwin: Maybe he just thinks to himself… “hmmm… that Klingon didn’t step on my foot like all the other ones. Maybe they don’t all step on feet”

@poofandmook You simplified, but the fallacy lies in the simplification. An almost infinite number of variables combine to make each person as they are. Any attempt to simplify ignores that fact.

As for your example, a Klingon is not a human, but (supposedly) another species. One might rightly pose the question of whether there was some genetic factor that accounts for the foot-stepping. But since no racially-linked genetic factor for various behaviors in humans has ever been found, then you have to look to culture to explain group behaviors.

Is there a link between race and culture? Given a small enough sample, correlations could certainly be found, but correlation doesn’t imply causation. Can we know anything at all about this man’s culture? No, we could only make wild guesses about the culture in which he’s been raised. How, then, could someone predict his character? It’s way too messy for simplification.

The situation becomes much simpler when we’re talking about outward signs that clearly demonstrate choices someone has made, because choices can reflect character. Seeing a gang tat, or needle tracks, or a t-shirt with a swastika on someone may give some useful information about their character.

@Harp: Just FYI… I used Klingon because if I used a real example, someone would’ve jumped down my throat. And I happened to be watching Star Trek.

@poofandmook That’s what I figured, but it’s actually a great choice because that’s the way things work in the simplified world of fiction: you can create a class of beings that have some inherent character, and you know what they’re like because their bodies tell you that they belong to that class. My point is that this belongs to the realm of fiction.

the next person of ‘that group’ can be completely different and you have therefore given yourself no chance to find that out if you base your understanding on the past

Okay, so then answer this. If a young girl is abused by a man, and she goes through life thinking that all men are abusive, how is it that different? I mean, it’s a more severe negative experience… but why would she not be crucified for passing judgment on all men from that one?

@poofandmook well first off I didn’t know you were being crucified…
she shouldn’t think that no
but her trauma may prevent her from thinking clearly
that doesn’t make it okay
and I hope that she finds the strength to trust again

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: Again, as I stated twice before… I’m not talking about myself anywhere in this thread. It’s all hypothetical, theoretical, whatever. I’m pondering humanity.

@poofandmook excellent, I love to ponder humanity as well and I think that people shouldn’t generalize and that it’s very unfortunate that victims of sexual abuse swear off men forever

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: I agree. But a girl hating men her whole life isn’t looked at the same way even though it’s essentially the same thing. The action of one made her hate all of them… but that generalization is acceptable, where as other prejudices are not. That’s what I’m trying to understand.

@poofandmook that’s because she was hurt wheres a lot of other ‘negative’ experiences are because you don’t like a group of people or your parents raised you that way or any number of reasons – if you, as a boy, were raped by a black man and therefore avoided all black men for the rest of your life, i wouldnt call you a racist

I agree with a lot that has already been said. @Blondesjon statement hate everyone and like on an individual basis I don;t hate everyone, but I do like on an individual basis, I htink that is the MOST important thing. To realize that even when you generalize not everyone from a particular group is going to be the same.

@DrBill said avoidance is not discriminating I disagree, it is. I can’t imagine purposely avoiding people from a certain group. I can imagine walking in a different direction if a bunch of big guys who look like hoodlums are in the direction I was going to walk for safety reasons, actually on an empty street any man, even well dressed would trouble me, but that is a different thing, more akin to profiling, which I am perfectly fine with.

I think there is a difference between prejudice and racism. You might be prejudice against a group, “prejudge” them based on experience or statistical data, but that does not have to mean you generalize it to everyone in the group. I think racist generalize to the whole group.

But a girl hating men her whole life isn’t looked at the same way even though it’s essentially the same thing. The action of one made her hate all of them… but that generalization is acceptable

It is?

I prefer to like everyone until they prove to be unlikeable.

@Darwin . . .i’m jealous. i really do wish i could.

@Blondesjon: Any guy with a crush on a llama named “Spot” is, ipso facto, tolerant.

@gailcalled . . .True, I am a very tolerant person.

Unfortunately I am also a very self absorbed, opinionated, windbag with serious grouch issues. I am very stingy with my like.

Love, on the other hand, I toss around like rice at a wedding.

I think the way the person should think about is to turn it around. Would they want to judged based on someone else’s experiences with people of their group (whatever group that hypothetically is)?

When I think of it like that, I know that I would be quite incensed that I would be judged prior to actual knowledge of me as a lying, cheating bitch just because someone had only had encounters with five redheaded women and they were all lying, cheating bitches.

I am not prejudiced but I see certain trends with certain people in certain areas. I strive to not immediately place anyone in a group until I know them and then make my own personal judgement based on knowledge. And when I say judgement I mean that in the sense of do I want to be friends with this person, do I want to do business with this person. I do not mean it in that I judge their worth as a human being.

So to answer the question, I, as a mere mortal, can understand how one could begin to “profile” a culture. But I don’t necessarily see that as prejudice.

If you have a group of people living near you who all wear the same clothing, same hats, speak using the same slang, listen to the same style of music, drive cars modified in the same way, and who invariably attack you, steal from you or vandalise your property, and you still keep trying to approach them and be friendly, you will be regarded as an idiot. It is a gang, a closed group you will be told, they do not want to accept you, they will always be a risk to you. Avoid them!

If you add that these people are all members of a particular race, you be called a racist, told not feel prejudice, to be welcoming and friendly toward them, no matter what response you receive.

It can be hard to walk both lines. It is also completely unrealistic as disliking some negative constants in a race is NOT racism, it is normal. Other members of the same race also dislike it.

I have no racial prejudices, but I definitely do have behavioural prejudices, and if that behaviour has a race bias – tough. It isn’t their race that earned the dislike, it is their behaviour.

@Blondesjon – I find it much easier to simply hate everyone : I have a dog like that. Mixed ancestry, with more than a touch of pit bull, he hates everybody except for a fortunate few (very few).

i lurve dogs.

@Blondesjon – Actually, I was in complete agreement with your first response and now your last one also!

@Blondesjon all you need to solve your serious grouch issues is a big ol’ Fluther group hug, just watch where you put your hands.

@DarkScribe: The problem with your analogy is that A -> B does not mean that B -> A. If all members of this gang are of a certain race that doesn’t mean that all people of that race are in the gang. Different thing entirely.

@DarkScribe , @cyndyh – many years ago, I was in Geneva on business. One evening I went for a walk along the river bank and I came to a place where 2 rivers meet – sorry, geography was my worst subject, I don’t know which rivers these were. As I rounded the corner, I encountered a group of teenagers, all male and of course, white. My first reaction was fear, as it was a lonely place. The youths simply drew to one side to let me pass and when I said good evening, they replied, “Bon soir.” Accustomed as I am to travelling in the US and some parts of the West Indies, my fear was rational, given the circumstances, but unjust. In 1979 Geneva had very little street crime. Had I met them singly or in pairs, that would have been one thing: but there were 8 or 9 in the group, large, well fed, healthy and all male. Upon my honour, it was the maleness, rather than the whiteness, that I feared. Am I neurotic? I don’t think so.

@cyndyh The problem with your analogy is that A -> B does not mean that B -> A

There is no problem with my analogy – it is accurate and succinct. It did not suggest what you are refuting. Read it again. I was quite clear.

How do you not understand this:

I have no racial prejudices, but I definitely do have behavioural prejudices, and if that behaviour has a race bias – tough. It isn’t their race that earned the dislike, it is their behaviour.

@DarkScribe : It’s when you talk about “negative constants” in a race that it sounds like you’re talking about B-> A. If that’s not what you meant, so be it.

@bea2345 : I think not knowing how to read a situation doesn’t make you racist. But I also don’t get the fearing males thing. I just don’t really relate to that. I think a group of people coming toward me would have to do something to make me afraid. I don’t know if I’d call it neurotic, but it may be irrational.

@cyndyh _It’s when you talk about “negative constants” _

Negative constant in this case is a closed racial gang – no other race allowed as members. Members of their own race dislike then as much as I do. The fact of the gang does not taint the entire race – not to someone who has a logical approach to life. Unfortunately it does for many who have less thoughtful or logical response to life. Some people hate all Japanese as a response to awareness of Yakuza or regard all Italians as potentially Mafioso. That is what I am talking about. Disliking a high profile negative association with a race, a sub-set, is not racism.

@cyndyh I can’t answer for @bea2345 but if I am alone on a street and ahead of me is a group of men seemingly doing nothing but, “hanging out,” I would not want to walk alone past them.

@DarkScribe : Ok, you’re talking about constant across time and not constant across all people of that race. It just read differently to me.

@JLeslie : I know there are a lot of women who feel that way. I’m just not one of them. What’s the rationale, really? I do think it’s progress that we’re all talking about walking alone now instead of always having to be accompanied when walking. So, I guess that’s something.

@cyndyh I was raised by parents who were raised in The Bronx. Also, if the bad thing does happen, if they take you into an ally and gang rape you, was it worth it to walk by there, or better to just walk down the next street? It’s not that I am terrified, it’s just being prudent. I also always lock my car doors (I had always done this since a little girl, again the parents, but when I was in my 20’s the daughter of a woman who worked for me had not locked her doors while leaving Target in Boca Raton, FL and when she stopped to merge onto the main road a guy jumped into the passenger seat, made her drive to a construction area, and raped her). I also check the back seat of my car before I get in the car. I also walk like I know where I am going with a stride that represents confidence when I walk down a city street. Why give people a chance to hurt you? I also never leave plastic on or in my stove or oven. My sister-in-law does, and she set her house on fire once, and she still continued to do it, it makes no sense to me. It’s not that I walk around paranoid, it’s second nature.

One more thing. When I worked in retail I called security when people walked in with baggy clothes on, I don’t care what color they were, if they had space to tuck merchandise down their pants I was calling, especially if it was a group of young people. And, yes, we did catch them stealing sometimes. And yes, we also caught middle class white women shoving merchandise under their babies in carriages.

It would not change my life to never put plastic in my stove. It does change my life if I want to go somewhere and I’m afraid to walk down a street.

No, it’s not wrong. You’re entitled to feel your own feelings w/o anyone’s judgements. You may benefit from reading up on Co-dependence if this is really bothering you.

@cyndyh I would try to choose the well lit street with other people walking on it, even if I had to walk a block out of my way.