Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Is Prejudice? How Does It Work?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 09:32 AM

This post was inspired by a discussion with another member, who called me a racist and a hypocrite (but not an acrobat).

 

Prejudice is not wanting things to be the way they are in my opinion, lack of it accepting reality as it exists here and now, and going beyond it to create a greater one, through unity of purpose but not necessarily through unity of belief or appearance.  Prejudice is seeing people as groups, not individuals as subjective things, not living beings.  It is assuming we know the truth (lynch mobs / the killing of a Sikh in America, after 9/11 because he was foreign looking), rather than putting the brakes on your actions and stopping to think, explore and discover the truth.  As a personal instance of arrogant assumption, I slid on a neighbours icy path and immediately thought 'How stupid to clear away the snow, when it obviously was still freezing cold!' Then I thought how often has it snowed here?  Twice in 8 years.  If it had snowed every year then it would be reasonable to expect people to remember the effects of such actions but not when it was that rare.

 

'But they are only Russians' was the reaction of Walter Duranty to the famine caused by Stalin during the thirties.  It won him a Pulitzer Prize.  By contrast Gareth Jones actually journeyed to the famine area  and reported on the death of millions.  "Only the closed mind is certain" to quote Dean Spanley in the book of the same title by Lord Dunsaney.  It is focus blindness as with the gorilla on the pitch experiment. It is pre-judging a situation and thinking we know without checking (lazy attitude).  It is the way Guantanamo Bay has tortured prisoners for years and President Karzai kicked out special forces in Afghanistan, for torturing locals to 'try' to get information they probably didn't have but the troops 'thought' they did:  Certainty leads to action - doubt leads to inaction. It's the way coloured people were hung in The South while families had picnics underneath (Strange Fruit by Billie Holiday).  It is the way the Nazis blamed the Jews for the state of Germany after the first world war and that led to the concentration camps.

 

Segregation is separation in action, which is prejudice in thought or deed ("Nothing to do with me!" attitude versus "No man is an island" John Donne).  Islam as a society doesn't treat women as equals, unlike The West but that doesn't mean individuals within it, all have that attitude - Malala Yousafzai's father for instance, who is proud of his daughters stand on education (the mind is more malleable than we know and the brains of men and women are no different, according to research by Professor Gina Rippon of Aston University, Birmingham, UK).  We must not forget that even the West used to treat women differently when it came to places of worship, until modern times (A church in Thurso, North Scotland, where I used to live, had a door for men to enter on one side and a separate one for women on the other side).  We used to behead people ourselves in Britain during the Middle Ages and even hung children for stealing bread, as Charles Dickins disclosed.  Genital mutilation is still carried out on young girls and leads to severe trauma.  It cannot be claimed to be Islamic, anymore than the wearing of the Burka is as both are cultural, not religious. We also hung a monkey for being a French spy and had other animal trials. 

 

Harun Al-Rashid was a Muslim ruler whose reign saw a great flowering of science, art, medicine, architecture, invention and philosophy. Sant Tukaram started the Bhakti movement which challenged India's caste system as Nelson Mandela challenged Apartheid in South Africa and David Wilberforce challenged slavery in Britain - all these people sought progression in society and were opposed by those who wanted things to stay the same (Star Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country and the plot to keep things as they were).

 

My point about intelligence being about willingness to let go of the past applies here (Thinking bad of the past is bad for your health according to Spanish research and makes it harder to engage with the world around you) - that is fluidity of thought as an individual or society versus rigid defense of beliefs.  This is the elephant in the room, in The UK, with regards to the Muslim 'community' (defense committee) but obviously not in France from their reaction to The Charlie Hebdo killings and I can't say about America (Big or small Muslim population?). 

 

Humour is the enemy of prejudice as this as an attitude is about letting go and not taking life seriously enough to kill anyone over, unlike taking things seriously (fear and violence based reaction as opposed to cool headed thought).  Prejudice is lazy thinking followed by lazy action.  It is failing to control yourself, in order to ascertain the truth.  It is about stopping reaction, not encouraging it.  It is about gaining knowledge but letting go of it, when it is no longer relevant or doesn't bring positive results.  It's the opposite of force - it is open enquiry.  "It is believing everything and nothing" Inspector Clouseau - that is not jumping to conclusions but accepting possibilities.  Speed and fear/ excitement go together as does shallowness of perception/thought:  Adrenaline (action) junkies versus thought (ideas) junkies i.e. slowing things down to examine them versus speeding them up to create excitement.

 

Royal Holloway University researchers found that the false hand trick as demonstrated on an edition of QI, the UK quiz show hosted by Stephen Fry, helps combat racism as does anything that helps overcome what is at base a phobic reaction (Eddie Murphy's make up, turning him into a white man in appearance, could have been used to the same effect as I suggested to Oprah Winfrey in a letter, years ago). 

 

I was also called a hypocrite and that ties in with this because UK research disclosed that middle class men, who fought against racial prejudice, showed the same unconscious reactions top coloured people as those who were openly racist - in other words hidden phobia.  I believe this ties in with other research about acting superior to hide feelings of inferiority (Survey by Ask Jeeves, a search engine in the UK):  Everywhere you look is fear, I fear!


Edited by pagetheoracle, 21 January 2015 - 09:52 AM.


#2 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:33 AM

This post was inspired by a discussion with another member, who called me a racist and a hypocrite (but not an acrobat).

I suspect you are referring to me. But that would be an error. I did not call you a racist. I did not call you a hypocrite. I said this:

 

And I return to my prior point. You were willing to debate and put forward your argument, whatever it was, when thousands are dying every day in the third world, yet choose to get upset when a few Europeans get murdered. Smacks of racism to me. Or at best an unrecognised, by yourself, hypocrisy.

You are of a culture and an age close enough to mine to know that the phrase "smacks of" indicates a suspicion and a challenge. It is not an absolute assertion.

 

I definitely did not call you an acrobat, for they possess excellent balance.

 

You continue:

Prejudice is not wanting things to be the way they are in my opinion, lack of it accepting reality as it exists here and now, and going beyond it to create a greater one, through unity of purpose but not necessarily through unity of belief or appearance.

No. That does not match any current use, or former use, of  the word. You cannot expect to communicate effectively if you choose your own meanings for words.

 

Prejudice is seeing people as groups, not individuals as subjective things, not living beings.

Closer, but still no bannana. This is more a definition of stereotyping than of prejudice.

 

For the rest, I have no idea what coherent thought you are trying to extract from your individually interesting cameos.



#3 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7953 posts

Posted 23 January 2015 - 08:51 AM

The usual definition, of prejudice comes directly from its Latin origin words, “pre”, meaning “before”, and “judicium” meaning “judgement”: to “judge in advance”.

I think your long list of examples prejudice contains both hits and misses according to the criteria of this definition

Prejudice is not wanting things to be the way they are in my opinion, lack of it accepting reality as it exists here and now, and going beyond it to create a greater one, through unity of purpose but not necessarily through unity of belief or appearance. Prejudice is seeing people as groups, not individuals as subjective things, not living beings.

These example, I think, miss. The desires and inactions you describe could result from prejudice, but could also from long consideration of evidence and reasoning.
 

It is assuming we know the truth (lynch mobs / the killing of a Sikh in America, after 9/11 because he was foreign looking), rather than putting the brakes on your actions and stopping to think, explore and discover the truth.

This, I think, is a hit. Assuming we understand something before examining it is a direct exercise of judging in advance. Stopping to think, explore, and better understand is its polar opposite.

I think it’s important to consider that prejudice, in a technical sense, is not always a bad thing, but in many cases a practical necessity. If we stopped to thing about everything we encountered before making and acting on our judgments concerning it, we’d be slow, ineffective, and prone to error. Inappropriate, maladaptive prejudice occurs when our usual, helpful prejudices cause us to err, and we fail to recognize our error.

Like much in the human condition, having prejudice must needs be an exercise in balance and flexibility. We need to have prejudices, but quickly recognize when they lead us to error, and have the flexibility to discard them when they do.

#4 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 23 January 2015 - 09:06 AM

I suspect you are referring to me. But that would be an error. I did not call you a racist. I did not call you a hypocrite. I said this:

 

You are of a culture and an age close enough to mine to know that the phrase "smacks of" indicates a suspicion and a challenge. It is not an absolute assertion.

 

I definitely did not call you an acrobat, for they possess excellent balance.

 

You continue:

No. That does not match any current use, or former use, of  the word. You cannot expect to communicate effectively if you choose your own meanings for words.

 

Closer, but still no bannana. This is more a definition of stereotyping than of prejudice.

 

For the rest, I have no idea what coherent thought you are trying to extract from your individually interesting cameos.

What is stereotyping if not prejudice?  As for my use of words to explain how I see prejudice - how about that being a future definition of what it will be seen as in the future? You mean I cannot communicate to you effectively, if I chose my own words, not to other people or do you know what other people are thinking all the time, even yourself? Like the caterpillar in, Alice in Wonderland, I use words to convey meaning as I want to or I would fail to convey concepts that it seems cannot be put any other way.  Look at science's creative use of language to explain things (Latin and animal species for instance).  I can't speak Maths but I never could.

 

I know you did not call me an acrobat, that was The Pink Panther.  Your wording was very distinctly phrased to avoid saying it but hinted at it, without taking responsibility for that implication.  Sorry but that is what I read into it.  If this is not the case then I suggest Haddocks at dawn as I'm a Cod fearing man!

 

Your 'call sign' is Animal Farm speak as far as I'm concerned.  An open mind is open to anything and a closed mind believes nothing (My Inspector Clouseau quote is closer to what a true open mind is about:  It's accepting that anything is possible but not reacting to anything, in case it isn't e.g. I could be an armed policeman that might think you're armed too as is happening with amazing regularity in America at the moment.  This presumption I also put under the umbrella of prejudice too in its original meaning of prejudging.  If you mean the same as me, then you too are guilty of not making yourself clear.

 

http://www.pinterest...64992213588268/


Edited by pagetheoracle, 23 January 2015 - 09:38 AM.


#5 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 23 January 2015 - 09:28 AM

Prejudice wants to convert opposition, which it does through fear in the form of verbal or physical intimidation (Boko Haram / ISIS).  Those it cannot change to its will (enslave), it eradicates.  Acceptance (tolerance / patience) is allowing people to be who they are as individuals, not as slavish followers.  This is why the West is so creative at the moment in my opinion - it allows dissent as hot air but still goes on creating new things, new ways at looking at the world.  As I've said elsewhere recently fear creates prejudice and leads to violent action but despair on the one hand at human stupidity and a sense of humour at our own, disarms it.  The potential exists in us all.  Suspicion is created when we fail to be open (don't mix) - this again is obviously based on fear as courage is jumping into the fray and saying proudly "This is who I am, whether you like it or not!"  There's a scheme in operation in the UK at present, to address this fear of Islam, by a group calling itself Islamix.  By their disclosure of what is happening in the Muslim community, this fear is being removed at least in some measure.

 

http://uk.pinterest....64992208973331/



#6 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 23 January 2015 - 10:50 AM

You continue to make assertions that, while acceptable as opinions, are expressed by you as absolutes, with no supporting evidence. Some are trivially dismissed. For example, prejudice may wish to convert the opposition, but not always; nor does it always attempt to do so using intimidation. As long as you continue that approach you will find people disagreeing with you and you will continue taking offense, misinterpreting and then throwing a wobbly.



#7 BrettNortje

BrettNortje

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts

Posted 23 January 2015 - 02:37 PM

Don't you guys think that prejudice is about relay cultures? it comes from where you see others that you think of as peers openly dissing others of another type of people. this fear makes us prejudiced! it is all about peer pressure.

 

So, to get rid of racism and prejudice, we need to get people to repeat things that are nice about other types of people, or, broadcast it in the media, over and over. hell, even a sign outside a shop that an old lady sees everyday would do the trick!



#8 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7953 posts

Posted 23 January 2015 - 06:25 PM

Prejudice wants to convert opposition, which it does through fear in the form of verbal or physical intimidation (Boko Haram / ISIS). Those it cannot change to its will (enslave), it eradicates. Acceptance (tolerance / patience) is allowing people to be who they are as individuals, not as slavish followers.
...

Like Eclogite, I think you’re misusing the word “prejudice”, but while I think you’re misusing language in your effort to express yourself, I believe I share what you feel about social tolerance and intolerance – that we need more of the former, and less of the latter. I count people sincerely working in that direction as friends, support them, and count myself one of them.

I disagree with one of your claims strongly enough to mention it:

Humour is the enemy of prejudice as this as an attitude is about letting go and not taking life seriously enough to kill anyone over,

In my experience, some of the worst expressions and promotion of prejudiced attitudes are in the form of humor. Nearly every category of prejudice has volumes of humor expressing it: the racist joke, sexist joke, anti-gay joke, anti-straight joke – the list goes one, including even jokes where the object of the prejudice no longer exists and is recognized only by historian/sociologists, or not at all. Some of the most strongly prejudiced people I’ve known excel at letting go and not taking life seriously, and would kill only the most extreme case of self defense, while some of the most liberal people I’ve known have scarcely any sense of humor, and seem to take everything seriously all the time.
 

Don't you guys think that prejudice is about relay cultures?

I’ve never heard the phrase “relay culture”, and as internet searches find it nowhere but this thread, suspect you just made it up.

Nonetheless, as with Paige, I like your sentiment.
 

So, to get rid of racism and prejudice, we need to get people to repeat things that are nice about other types of people, or, broadcast it in the media, over and over. hell, even a sign outside a shop that an old lady sees everyday would do the trick!

Sounds right to me. I’ll add, though, that often a more direct, confrontational approach is more effective: when you witness people acting out of racial and other prejudice, call them on it. Peer pressure works not when peers encourage each other to act badly, but when they chastise each other for it.

#9 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:21 AM

So, to get rid of racism and prejudice, we need to get people to repeat things that are nice about other types of people, or, broadcast it in the media, over and over. hell, even a sign outside a shop that an old lady sees everyday would do the trick!

If you are saying we need to educate people about our similarities and differences, then I agree with you. However, this does not simply mean saying things that are nice about them.

 

We need to ask, nice by whose standards. I might consider it nice that young people can enjoy themselves sunbathing on the beach, swimming in the ocean and enjoying a cool beer or two in the company of friends of both sexes, perhaps while eating some barbecued pork sausages. Everything in that scenario would be sinful to a devout, strict Muslim. If we repeatedly broadcast examples of such behaviour (which you may notice is exactly what we do) it would simply confirm in the minds of those Muslims that these people were bad.

 

I think you can construct for yourself a scenario from the other side. The things that a devout Muslim would consider nice, but that a liberal Westerner might view as restictive, sexist and elitist.

 

Further, we need to consider other people and other cultures in their entirety - warts and all. If we only emphasis what is nice, assuming we can agree on what is nice, we get an unrealistic picture of the other party that is just as flawed and ultimately as damaging as the prejudiced view.



#10 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:56 AM

Eclogite, when you talk of millions dying in the world, compared to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, what is your point?  Do you mean something like that there's nothing that can be done to stop it because of its immensity, so why fuss about a dozen more or are you saying something else, like why are they any more special than anyone else dying?

 

What I'm trying to say about the stereotyping point is that prejudice is a sliding scale, composed of different components, that goes from violent hate to intense dislike and even just preferences (likes / dislikes).  It is part of what makes us human and I'm trying to understand and disclose what this is, in my own blundering way, in the soft sciences (In other words it has the potential to exist in us all and to some degree, it also exists in the pursuit of knowledge (science) as that overcomes the fear and superstition that exists in the world.  I believe it is simply a fear of letting go and moving on and funnily enough I see it in my and my worry about moving back up north, in case I end up somewhere so noisy that it makes writing difficult or almost impossible - that is my fear (I also have a phobia about house spiders, which I control by moving them out of the house, rather than killing them. Treatment in psychology involves acclimatizing people to their fear, in order to overcome it - violence or killing what you hate/fear is the alternative).  As I say prejudice is always aimed at fear of the unknown, the different, the strange or the new (Sabot-age/ Luddites).  It's about excluding what you're frightened of or afraid of becoming (Science fiction films have covered this well in the past from 'Invasion of the body snatchers,' 'The Thing' to 'Alien' and 'Predator' (Conversion fear, be it bodies or minds that get altered).

 

Anyway must get back to throwing out my montage artwork, if people I've contacted don't want it (Academies and Local colleges will be the beneficiaries, if an editor I know doesn't need the originals for publication but can use the site the images are stored on).  After that I start sending out copies of my literacy material that I put on this site to local schools, in case anyone is interested.



#11 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 07:25 AM

Eclogite, when you talk of millions dying in the world, compared to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, what is your point?  Do you mean something like that there's nothing that can be done to stop it because of its immensity, so why fuss about a dozen more or are you saying something else, like why are they any more special than anyone else dying?

I don't know how to express any more clearly than I have already done. This will simply be repetition.

 

1. You were presenting an argument - for what I can no longer remember.

2. Then the Paris shootings occured.

3. Your reaction was to say (and paraphrase your statement), "What I was talking about is no longer important in the light of these shootings."

4. I then asked you why you thought this handful of deaths of well off Europeans should lead to cessation of the discussion when you were perfectly happy to hold the discussion while tens of thousands of poor third world citizens were dying.

5. I never understood any of your responses to that question and so I was left with the impression that you valued the lives of a dozen Europeans above those of thousands of Africans. That is what I suggested gave the impression of racism or hypocrsy. I still think it does.

 

What I'm trying to say about the stereotyping point is that prejudice is a sliding scale, composed of different components, that goes from violent hate to intense dislike and even just preferences (likes / dislikes).  It is part of what makes us human and I'm trying to understand and disclose what this is, in my own blundering way,

Yes, it is a blundering way, for that is not at all what you said. Your description was exclusively about one end of the spectrum - the violent end. If you continue to express yourself this badly, you must expect that I shall continue to challenge your statements. Describing prejudice as being spectrum of views and intensities is a position I think most people could agree with. Characterising it as you did in your opening posts was pure crap. I trust you can see that.

 

As I say prejudice is always aimed at fear of the unknown,

No it isn't. You are going down the route of false absolutes again.

 

I am not afraid of the middle classes of a country that shall remain nameless, but which I worked in for a time. But as a general statement I am prejudiced against the middle class of that country because I do know them and know them quite well and found them to be - in general - an arrogant, elitist, snobbish bunch of dickheads. My prejudice arises out of knowledge and contains no element of fear whatsoever, just a deep distaste.



#12 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 25 January 2015 - 08:01 AM

If you are saying we need to educate people about our similarities and differences, then I agree with you. However, this does not simply mean saying things that are nice about them.

 

We need to ask, nice by whose standards. I might consider it nice that young people can enjoy themselves sunbathing on the beach, swimming in the ocean and enjoying a cool beer or two in the company of friends of both sexes, perhaps while eating some barbecued pork sausages. Everything in that scenario would be sinful to a devout, strict Muslim. If we repeatedly broadcast examples of such behaviour (which you may notice is exactly what we do) it would simply confirm in the minds of those Muslims that these people were bad.

 

I think you can construct for yourself a scenario from the other side. The things that a devout Muslim would consider nice, but that a liberal Westerner might view as restictive, sexist and elitist.

 

Further, we need to consider other people and other cultures in their entirety - warts and all. If we only emphasis what is nice, assuming we can agree on what is nice, we get an unrealistic picture of the other party that is just as flawed and ultimately as damaging as the prejudiced view.

'Nice' is a value judgment, rather than a scientific one.  Further it is prejudicial (phobic) because it implies an opposite state of nasty or superior / inferior stance.  Tolerance, patience and diplomacy is fighting our own programmed habits and tastes (prejudicial view of the world or as Nancy Mitford put "You and non-you" or class distinctions).  Children come into this without expectations as adults acquire them ("I know my rights!" (We have none in reality, in my opinion)" I should have this or I need that!"attitude.  Adults are addicted to lifestyles, rather than drugs - stuck on beliefs rather than caught in disbelief (awe at what they experience of the world), which the innocence of childhood avoids).  Children are born with curiosity about the world but learn fear from their experiences as they start to see danger (injury / illness) and the end to existence (old age) - this to me is where prejudice comes from, holding onto what we fear we might lose, rather than accepting death and danger, and just getting on with life regardless.  One way of life may have more advantages than another (or less) but ultimately they all end as history and indeed prehistory shows us.  Fear of moving on is the problem or simply 'change.'  As I say it is hatred of the different, the new, the strange that leads to persecution of those that don't conform and prejudice is a sign of our distaste at those that don't follow the rules.  Things are not bad or good but choices to include or exclude appearance or behaviour traits.  I may not like how you use your freedom of choice but suppression is the attempt to stop that, whether by word or deed because you as an individual or society don't wish to have that action displayed openly in public or those views expressed either. 

 

When I was in Scientology they had (they kicked me out after a few months) a saying "If it is not true for you, then it is not true."  You obviously don't see what I mean and therefore don't agree with what I say and no amount of words will change that, so I see no point arguing in circles and getting nowhere with the discussion.  By the way I posted something on Twitter and the guy didn't agree with what I was saying either but the invective he used showed a deep hatred, rather than the mild dislike displayed here (I even think he tried to put two different Trojan Horse's on my computer, which I found amusing - if I'd been in America and he knew where I lived, I'd probably had a handgun emptied into me).  Hate drives violence and is fueled by fear and that is all there is to it.

 

Anyway I need to get onto something productive, so if you'll excuse me my publisher calls and while I don't like the technical angle of producing a manuscript that has different columns in it every so often, I must face my fear and get on with it.



#13 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 25 January 2015 - 08:16 AM

I don't know how to express any more clearly than I have already done. This will simply be repetition.

 

1. You were presenting an argument - for what I can no longer remember.

2. Then the Paris shootings occured.

3. Your reaction was to say (and paraphrase your statement), "What I was talking about is no longer important in the light of these shootings."

4. I then asked you why you thought this handful of deaths of well off Europeans should lead to cessation of the discussion when you were perfectly happy to hold the discussion while tens of thousands of poor third world citizens were dying.

5. I never understood any of your responses to that question and so I was left with the impression that you valued the lives of a dozen Europeans above those of thousands of Africans. That is what I suggested gave the impression of racism or hypocrsy. I still think it does.

 

Yes, it is a blundering way, for that is not at all what you said. Your description was exclusively about one end of the spectrum - the violent end. If you continue to express yourself this badly, you must expect that I shall continue to challenge your statements. Describing prejudice as being spectrum of views and intensities is a position I think most people could agree with. Characterising it as you did in your opening posts was pure crap. I trust you can see that.

 

No it isn't. You are going down the route of false absolutes again.

 

I am not afraid of the middle classes of a country that shall remain nameless, but which I worked in for a time. But as a general statement I am prejudiced against the middle class of that country because I do know them and know them quite well and found them to be - in general - an arrogant, elitist, snobbish bunch of dickheads. My prejudice arises out of knowledge and contains no element of fear whatsoever, just a deep distaste.

If you mean the Conservatives why not say so?  I don't much like them either but have the courage to say so but then I'm unemployed and your job may depend upon you not saying so, if you're still working or moving in such circles as I'm not privy to.  Fear stills our tongues - true disgust is spat back in the face of those we loathe or fear.  As far as politicians go in The West I've only hated two and made no secret of it - Maggie Thatcher and George Bush junior, both of whom messed up either the UK or the world by their behaviour (His internal and external policies and her internal ones mostly).

 

Bringing in third world citizens is hitting below the belt and you know it (If you can't think of a decent argument emotional blackmail is a poor substitute I'd recognize anyway and that is why I laughed at it the first time:  Again I ask what are you doing about the third world, if you're so concerned?  Are you treating Ebola victims?  No, me neither as I was only ever a hospital porter, not a doctor or qualified nurse.  Have you put your name down or voluntary services overseas? I tried once as I was going to take my language teaching ideas out there but was turned down because of lack of either experience in teaching or qualifications but I assume from your interests and travel all over the world, you would have more going for you than I had. 



#14 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 25 January 2015 - 09:17 AM

If you mean the Conservatives why not say so?

Because I do not mean the conservatives. In what expletive deleted way would the conservatives constitute the middle class of the UK?  Now, that would be stereotyping.

 

I specifically said, a country that shall be nameless. I have no problem insulting my own country when it is called for, but I shall certainly not publicly insult a country simply because they seem to have the misfortune to have a surprisingly large number of unpleasant people in one of their social strata. I am choosing not to name the country, not out of fear, but out of politeness.

 

Bringing in third world citizens is hitting below the belt and you know it

Consistent rubbish, applied persistently.



#15 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 25 January 2015 - 02:49 PM

Because I do not mean the conservatives. In what expletive deleted way would the conservatives constitute the middle class of the UK?  Now, that would be stereotyping.

 

I specifically said, a country that shall be nameless. I have no problem insulting my own country when it is called for, but I shall certainly not publicly insult a country simply because they seem to have the misfortune to have a surprisingly large number of unpleasant people in one of their social strata. I am choosing not to name the country, not out of fear, but out of politeness.

 

Consistent rubbish, applied persistently.

Well by being polite you are saying nothing.  Spit it out so I know what you're talking about or say nothing instead of hinting at a hidden meaning, which leads to guess work on my part.  You criticized me for not making myself clear but maybe 'Dear Brutus, the problem is in you, not the stars.' 

 

Yes people are dying all the time and so are animals that we kill to eat, murder for sport or experiment on.  I'm not God*, so can't do anything about it - again what was your purpose in bringing this up, that you never answered but have consistently avoided (I've changed my mind about you possibly being in the oil industry as your posts more resemble a politician or someone in the diplomatic corps)?

 

Sorry about calling you a 'wandering wanderer.' If you're a teacher (Don't you just love charades?), how can anyone know what you're teaching them, when you don't make any direct statements or do you teach through the Socratic method?  What's your subject?  No don't tell me!  You're not going to anyway are you?  :sherlock:

 

*  I can't part the Red Sea, stop Tsunamis, stop earthquakes or even wars but I can avoid adding to it as an individual.  I can't stop famines caused by war or cash crops being given priority over food crops.  I can't stop Americans shooting each other or South Africans.  I can't stop Boko Haram or ISIS beheading hostages.  I do believe in the work of Oxfam, the Red Cross and its sister orgs in Europe and the Middle East and Water Aid but as an individual can do little myself:  Margaret Mead said only a concerned group of people can change the world but if you're not listened to and not supported, what can you do?  Die of a heart attack through frustration or laugh at the folly of the world, that is suicidal in its actions instead of uniting to overcome mutual problems (some do, some don't)? :zip:



#16 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 25 January 2015 - 03:09 PM

Well by being polite you are saying nothing.  Spit it out so I know what you're talking about or say nothing instead of hinting at a hidden meaning, which leads to guess work on my part.  You criticized me for not making myself clear but maybe 'Dear Brutus, the problem is in you, not the stars.' 

Pay attention. This is probably my last post to you, certainly in the forseeable future. I strongly suspect you are trolling, for I find it unlikley that an educated person could be so obtuse by chance,

 

Item 1

You made an assertion that our prejudice was a direct result of our fear. You offered no supporting evidence for this assertion. It was a mere opinion, but one that you presented as a fact.

 

To demonstrate the falsehood of that opinion I all have to do is provide an example of where prejudice arises from something other than fear. I provided such an example. For Pete's sake, page, it does not matter which country I am prejudiced against its middle class. The point is that prejudice exists and arose out of distaste, not fear.

 

Yet you prattle on completely missing the point. Here I'll make it again: you claim prejudice arises out of fear. I say you are wrong. My prejudice against the middle class of an unnamed country did not arise out of fear, so your abslute assertion is incorrect. Is that plain enough? Why are you having trouble understanding that?

 

Item 2

You have still failed utterly to explain why you are happy to carry on a discussion while thousands die in the third world, yet then say the death of a dozen Europeans - in a matter quite unrelated to the discussion - is sufficient reason for you to suspend that discussion.

 

You prevaricate, you obfuscate, you change the subject, but still you fail to address that point and with every failure the impression of racism and hypocrisy grows.

 

Item 3

My posts have been loaded with direct statements. Here is another one. Reply if you wish, but I am assuredly done with you for the forseeable future.



#17 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 213 posts

Posted 26 January 2015 - 05:00 AM

No need to be polite about Americans, they aren't always polite back (too open, unlike The British).  As for people like Donald Trump...

 

My wife keeps telling me to spit things out but you're the king of non-committal :bow:

 

As I've said before - you are not my target audience.  People like Erly Rissa and Brett are.  I want to encourage them to grow through expressing themselves http://www.pinterest...64992209437816/

The founder of The UK Samaritans, Chad Varah, recognized that its mission was to help people clarify their thoughts, to help themselves, through repeating their thoughts over and over again. External criticism destroys confidence in yourself, not creates it. These are my citations, my allies, who speak for me to say what I cannot say as eloquently or hadn't thought of at all - these and two hundred more that I add to as I make more and more discoveries about life.

http://www.pinterest...64992211553780/
http://www.pinterest...64992211553769/

http://ww.pinterest....64992211683501/

http://www.pinterest...64992210817807/

http://www.pinterest...64992210761698/

http://www.pinterest...64992210501971/

http://www.pinterest...64992211016913/