Original Post
Should prejudice be punishable?
Should prejudice be punishable?
Guideline/Rules
--This is only my third discussion thread so please PM me if anything should be changed.
~Proto
Good morning sweet princess
Firstly, prejudice is not "an under-informed opinion", it's a heuristic. Humans are heuristic machines, everything we do is generalized. If you pick up an apple, you have a general idea what it should taste like and whether you will like it or not. It's unreasonable to expect people to approach every apple with an empty mind - once you've tasted one apple you feel like you understand apples.
It's not something that can be switched off. If you see a person who looks similar and is in a similar situation to someone you previously saw, you can't help but assume they are similar.
Whether or not prejudice should be punished is entirely societal.
Let's look at both sides, first we can say allow prejudices. What's the downside? People feel like they are treated unfairly, perhaps segregation increases (doubtful), nothing major honestly.
If we disallow prejudice, people have to suppress a part of their subconscious mind (good luck with that), and people use "oh they were prejudiced against me" as an excuse constantly. Discussions on the content of someone's mind increase, and we get the oh so excellent thought policing. Bias is hard to determine, especially in judgement calls like hiring or firing.
Personally I think suppression of the subconscious is hard, and the cognitive tax is just too high.
It's not something that can be switched off. If you see a person who looks similar and is in a similar situation to someone you previously saw, you can't help but assume they are similar.
Whether or not prejudice should be punished is entirely societal.
Let's look at both sides, first we can say allow prejudices. What's the downside? People feel like they are treated unfairly, perhaps segregation increases (doubtful), nothing major honestly.
If we disallow prejudice, people have to suppress a part of their subconscious mind (good luck with that), and people use "oh they were prejudiced against me" as an excuse constantly. Discussions on the content of someone's mind increase, and we get the oh so excellent thought policing. Bias is hard to determine, especially in judgement calls like hiring or firing.
Personally I think suppression of the subconscious is hard, and the cognitive tax is just too high.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Let's rephrase the question. Should someone be punished for having an opinion that other people don't like?
It depends on whether you think we have a right to not be offended. If you think we do, then do you value that right over the right to free speech and freedom of expression?
The way I look at it, is that freedom of speech is fundamental principle for any kind of fair, liberty-minded political system. The 'right' to not be offended is in direct opposition to this. You're talking about restricting someone's freedom because you don't like what they say. Doesn't that sound loopy? It flies in the face of all the gains and advancements that Western society has made. Should someone be punished for having an opinion that other people don't like? Take a look at the non-Western countries today where this is the case - would you want to live there?
It depends on whether you think we have a right to not be offended. If you think we do, then do you value that right over the right to free speech and freedom of expression?
The way I look at it, is that freedom of speech is fundamental principle for any kind of fair, liberty-minded political system. The 'right' to not be offended is in direct opposition to this. You're talking about restricting someone's freedom because you don't like what they say. Doesn't that sound loopy? It flies in the face of all the gains and advancements that Western society has made. Should someone be punished for having an opinion that other people don't like? Take a look at the non-Western countries today where this is the case - would you want to live there?
Originally Posted by Ele
Let's rephrase the question. Should someone be punished for having an opinion that other people don't like?
It depends on whether you think we have a right to not be offended. If you think we do, then do you value that right over the right to free speech and freedom of expression?
The way I look at it, is that freedom of speech is fundamental principle for any kind of fair, liberty-minded political system. The 'right' to not be offended is in direct opposition to this. You're talking about restricting someone's freedom because you don't like what they say. Doesn't that sound loopy? It flies in the face of all the gains and advancements that Western society has made. Should someone be punished for having an opinion that other people don't like? Take a look at the non-Western countries today where this is the case - would you want to live there?
How is that my question rephrased?
-----
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Firstly, prejudice is not "an under-informed opinion", it's a heuristic. Humans are heuristic machines, everything we do is generalized. If you pick up an apple, you have a general idea what it should taste like and whether you will like it or not. It's unreasonable to expect people to approach every apple with an empty mind - once you've tasted one apple you feel like you understand apples.
It's not something that can be switched off. If you see a person who looks similar and is in a similar situation to someone you previously saw, you can't help but assume they are similar.
Whether or not prejudice should be punished is entirely societal.
Let's look at both sides, first we can say allow prejudices. What's the downside? People feel like they are treated unfairly, perhaps segregation increases (doubtful), nothing major honestly.
If we disallow prejudice, people have to suppress a part of their subconscious mind (good luck with that), and people use "oh they were prejudiced against me" as an excuse constantly. Discussions on the content of someone's mind increase, and we get the oh so excellent thought policing. Bias is hard to determine, especially in judgement calls like hiring or firing.
Personally I think suppression of the subconscious is hard, and the cognitive tax is just too high.
Not being able to express something isn't the same as having to suppress your subconscious.
-----
Originally Posted by ZENKID123
My opinion is it shouldn't be punishable. And if someone doesn't have enough info about them but is prejudice anyway then the one they are being prejudice towards probably doesn't know them that well either so it shouldn't matter that much. It's like ImmortalPig said we usually assume things based on past experience. We don't do it on purpose it's simply our nature. Prejudice isn't as bad as racism. I'll make an example:You see someone on a train holding a gun and there is a man on the floor bleeding out. You assume the guy shot him especially if he looks like a guy who you previously saw shooting someone on a train and causing a man to bleed out from the gunshot. Now here's the example for racism:You see a black man on a train and there is a man on the floor bleeding out. You assume he killed him. I believe Racism is something people do on purpose more than Prejudice. I don't think it's in our nature to judge someone or determine whether they're a threat or not based on their skin color or race. Another Prejudice example is seeing someone with a mustache and beard and assuming their Arab or seeing someone with a mustache and assuming their Mexican or seeing someone from behind with a hoody and assuming they're black(Which is racist too.) and intensifying that assumption/judgement based on their accents. When you hear someone with a certain accent you assume their a race because of previous experiences causing your brain to associate an accent to a certain race or nationality. Assuming things based on past experiences is evolutionary and probably helped us survive back in the stone age by using it to asses whether an animal your looking at is a threat or not based on previous experiences with the same type of creature. It's most likely impossible to keep a completely open min. Submitting to stereotypes is usually voluntary and consciously done and therefore chosen and done on purpose but getting ready to take a bit out of an apple and being able to think "Maybe it will taste like chicken. All the other apples I've eaten never had but this could be one that tastes like chicken" is impossible especially in today's day and age where we are intelligent creatures. Even animals know what something will taste like before eating it based on past experience. It would be unfair to punish a uncontrollable thing part of human nature. That'd be like getting mad at someone for accidentally pissing themselves out of fear or because they took too long to get to the bathroom. Threat assessing is one of the oldest human subconscious functions and assumption based on past experience plays a big part in it. Learning from past experience is important. If no one assumed things based on previous experience if you walked into a wall you would keep doing it nonstop because your keeping an open mind that you might be able to walk through it eventually. We're not robots(Even some robots and programs learn from past happenings). Back in the stone age neanderthals would've approached a predator like a boar or a tiger with caution or be cautious around it and think cautiously before making their next move because they are assuming it will attack them due to previous experiences because a creature that looked like it attacked them in the past. It helped us survive for thousands of years why stop now? And more importantly we can't stop now. You can't punish someone for something they cannot control. Racism or Stereotypes usually happen when someone is attacked by a person from a certain race and is Prejudice towards the entire race then it spreads so wide until everyone judges them based on their race/color/nationality. It's like how people see a black person now and they go farther because they feel they might have Ebola. That's a combination of Racism and Prejudice which the brain uses to keep us away from the risk of Ebola. Anyway to sum it up I feel it shouldn't be punished because Prejudice is uncontrollable, done subconsciously and lastly, it is evolutionary. Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed. P.S. This is my POV on the topic.
-----
I'm sure someone will with my opinion and i'm assuming this based on past experiences. Also what if someone says something the Leader doesn't like and then they make a drum out of his skin. That'd be rather unfair and Socially Un-Western to paraphrase Ele. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to object an opinion. No need for any punishing or getting mad.
-----
Also if Prejudice would become punishable this would just add the amount of strikes by hippies because "The Man" is holding them down.
Get off my thread please.
Last edited by Zelda; Oct 15, 2014 at 09:42 AM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by protonitron
How is that my question rephrased?
A prejudice is simply an opinion that someone has on something. Maybe hostile, maybe uninformed, but still an opinion. You're talking about punishing people for having opinions that someone finds offensive.
So I rephrased it to "Should someone be punished for having an opinion that other people don't like" since it puts it into perspective (and hopefully reveals the lunacy of it).
