PDA

View Full Version : What would happen if we outlaw prejudice?



KingScuba
01-25-2015, 08:42 PM
So what would happen if we outlaw racism, prejudice, and other forms of discrimination? Also, what would happen if prejudiced thoughts didn't exist? Let us discuss the ramifications, possible results, and general predictions.

This doesn't just mean in the work place (There's laws for that already), but just in the general public. So any talk that is insulting to another person based on their appearance, beliefs, or romantic ties could be considered prejudice.


Here are a few interesting reads

http://www.beyondprejudice.com/under_stand.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/federal-antidiscrimination-laws-29451.html
http://psychology.about.com/od/pindex/g/prejudice.htm

RippleApple
01-25-2015, 11:35 PM
Prejudice exists against prejudice, and such a move would be prejudiced toward prejudiced thus making it fundamentally pointless as it contradicts itself. Unless you add an exception for prejudice against prejudice, in which case it's a hypocritical law and thus arbitrary, rather than reasonably ordered.

Prejudice itself isn't bad. It's what you do with it that matters. After all, many radical pseudo-muslims would behead a person for talking ill of their prophet. In which case, those being beheaded would be prejudiced toward Islam. Is that sort of aggression, even made more mild, toward free speech something you really want in your culture?

Disquieted1
01-26-2015, 09:27 AM
Eliminating prejudice would be good. Prejudice and stereotypes go hand in hand, in both a positive and negative way.

The problem is that people see others as terrorists, or geniuses, or murderers or idols due to prejudice, rather than seeing that we all are human.

Trubblegum
01-27-2015, 12:45 PM
If prejudice was outlawed, we wouldn't have war, and most politicians would be out of office in a matter of minutes.

KingScuba
01-27-2015, 01:04 PM
If prejudice was outlawed, we wouldn't have war, and most politicians would be out of office in a matter of minutes.

No. War is generally about greed. We would simply find a better excuse than "He's X Religion/Race/Belief! Kill em with fire!"

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. - Jean-Paul Sartre

RippleApple
01-27-2015, 03:47 PM
If prejudice was outlawed, we wouldn't have war, and most politicians would be out of office in a matter of minutes.

That's prejudiced toward politicians.


No. War is generally about greed. We would simply find a better excuse than "He's X Religion/Race/Belief! Kill em with fire!"

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. - Jean-Paul Sartre

That's prejudiced toward the rich.

MiyobiKumagawa
01-27-2015, 04:06 PM
So basically if we outlaw prejudice then that's being prejudice against the prejudice which contradicts the fact that we are against prejudices even though we are being prejudice against the ones with prejudices. Wow okay I just lost myself there.

Aurasai
01-27-2015, 05:46 PM
We were all humans until race disconnected us, religion separated us, politics divided us and wealth classified us.

Before we are able to "outlaw prejudice" we need to have a correctly functioning society. As of now one of the main pillars of society is hate. Hate of others for being better then us; hate of others for being worse then us; hate of others for fighting back when we provoke them; hate of others for having their own goals and desires; hate of others for having a different opinion... Convincing people that you have a common enemy is the best way to control them.

If people are able to understand that the world is much bigger then they are and that improving it is a combined effort, there won't be a need to "outlaw prejudice".

RippleApple
01-27-2015, 07:20 PM
We were all humans until race disconnected us, religion separated us, politics divided us and wealth classified us.

Those things are what makes us human. We were beasts until we discovered we could make homes and breed with similar-looking people (race), our minds became as one (religion), we took an active interest in our political structures through philosophy (politics) and we understood the concept of trade (wealth). These things were corrupted due to selfishness, not prejudice.


Before we are able to "outlaw prejudice" we need to have a correctly functioning society. As of now one of the main pillars of society is hate. Hate of others for being better then us; hate of others for being worse then us; hate of others for fighting back when we provoke them; hate of others for having their own goals and desires; hate of others for having a different opinion... Convincing people that you have a common enemy is the best way to control them.

Like identifying those things above. Race is just another word for uniqueness, religion is just another word for a group identity, politics is just another word for deciding our future and wealth is just another word for relying on others through specialization.


If people are able to understand that the world is much bigger then they are and that improving it is a combined effort, there won't be a need to "outlaw prejudice".

Indeed. However, if you force something like that, it's nothing more than authoritarian fervor. What we need is for people to do so by choice. What we need is education. What we need is a revitalization of education, worldwide, to teach facts. Not to hang out with friends and work on social skills.

LegioXI
01-27-2015, 11:48 PM
So you mean you want to ban any form of criticism just to defend a few people's feelings? It's exactly the same as how feminists tried to ban the word "bossy" to protect female feelings, and see how hard it fucked up, regardless of the endorsements from "powerful" women like Beyonce and Sheryl Sandberg (CFO of Facebook, $1bil net worth).

[Mod Deleted] - KingScuba

KingScuba
01-28-2015, 12:12 AM
We were all humans until race disconnected us, religion separated us, politics divided us and wealth classified us.


Not at all. People have always been prejudiced to some extent. It is intrinsic to our nature. When we were still in the neolithic revolution (10,000 BC roughly), Colonies would be raided for resources. It isn't race that disconnects us, but social groups. Your family is generally your first social group. The old saying blood is thicker than water is generally true. The group you grow up with will be your primary group, and other groups you won't interact with, and generally won't feel bad about being hostile against.

Skin, Religion, Wealth, anything that separates you from me is an easy excuse to be prejudiced against you. You can be prejudiced against me here on this forum simply because I'm a moderator.


So what if we made it illegal to be prejudiced. Would it continue to exist or would it flounder out to nothing? For example, If it was illegal to speak out against homosexuality, would it lead to a generation where it was as normal as breathing air? Or would it simply amplify the hate and reach a boiling point to the point of causing a war?

LegioXI
01-28-2015, 02:11 AM
We were all humans until race disconnected us, religion separated us, politics divided us and wealth classified us.


Homo erectus and Neanderthals disappeared due to Homo sapiens beating them in the war of survival. Yes, we modern humans have some Neanderthal blood remaining in certain populations groups, but that is what remained through the racemixing millennia ago. Right now there is no "race" because we are all still homo sapiens, but the differences between white people, black people, asians, aboriginals was dictated in majority by the environment and resources.

Religion did separate people centuries ago, and it still does, however religion was good in maintaining a static set of rules of morality for humarnity, particularly christianity. Politics is a bit more sticky, right now at least in US there are no Democrats or Republicans, it's a group of people called plutocrats that "donate" (pretty much legalised corruption) for their campaigns, and banks are in a leading position for this.

Grimfortress
01-30-2015, 01:49 PM
Short of lobotomizing a majority of the human race and making them subintelligent slaves, I don't see how this could even be achieved. It is human nature. Education and a bit of good will can go a long way to get ps past our tribal instincts, but they are always there. All it takes is one person wanting something some one else has, or wanting a bit of social status above some one else, and you have conflict. With conflict and strife comes prejudice and hatred. ( Feel like Yoda)

HawkboyJr
02-04-2015, 11:50 PM
Prejudice and discrimination are fundamental elements of human knowledge. I have burnt my hand by placing it on a hot surface, therefore I am prejudice against placing my hand on exceedingly hot surfaces. I can discriminate between glue and soap and therefore apply them to their appropriate roles.
When people discuss prejudice and discrimination in a negative way, they are referring to arbitrary prejudices or discrimination, such as being prejudice against an individual for their skin colour or discriminating against someone for coming into the office in unusual garb. The only practical solution to this type of discrimination (without invoking a thought police) is through education. If they understand that the Muslim baker down the street doesn’t share the same beliefs as the Muslims involved in the Isis movement, even though they happen to identify with the same set of beliefs.
What’s especially important though is that we encourage acceptance without quashing differentiation. Just because being black is only one qualifier about an individual and doesn’t define them, it does give some small context to their back ground and heritage to whit you should respect and, given a deeper understanding of the individual, perhaps use to understand their expectations and social challenges a little bit better.
Apologies if this was in any way offensive to anyone who identifies with the black or Muslim population – I only singled these two groups out because they are the groups I see the most inexplicable hatred or misunderstanding for (though the homosexual, bisexual and transsexual populations certainly have their challenges as well). I feel that people should understand their heritage and those of others, if only for the sake of better understanding of the world around them.

Justaguy27
02-09-2015, 02:47 PM
The world would be boring. Hatred makes your life interesting

Redscyte
02-09-2015, 09:16 PM
So what would happen if we outlaw racism, prejudice, and other forms of discrimination? Also, what would happen if prejudiced thoughts didn't exist? Let us discuss the ramifications, possible results, and general predictions.

This doesn't just mean in the work place (There's laws for that already), but just in the general public. So any talk that is insulting to another person based on their appearance, beliefs, or romantic ties could be considered prejudice.


Here are a few interesting reads

http://www.beyondprejudice.com/under_stand.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/federal-antidiscrimination-laws-29451.html
http://psychology.about.com/od/pindex/g/prejudice.htm

Where are you from? This happens almost everywhere but USA. My latest trip in Britain saw people get arrested for calling a black guy the "N" word. Later one of the taxi drivers explained you cant discriminate in anyway, you cant call people fat, racial names, you can still call peple stupid but across the pond you better hope your big enough to fight against an uprising of people if they catch you.

Im from America but anyone who gets out and visit countries realize the worst thing we have here in America is freedom of speech, at least its real use. Its for protecting ourselves from government propaganda, not i can roll down the street spouting profanity and racial remarks to people for a giggle.

KingScuba
02-10-2015, 10:23 PM
Where are you from? This happens almost everywhere but USA. My latest trip in Britain saw people get arrested for calling a black guy the "N" word. Later one of the taxi drivers explained you cant discriminate in anyway, you cant call people fat, racial names, you can still call peple stupid but across the pond you better hope your big enough to fight against an uprising of people if they catch you.

Im from America but anyone who gets out and visit countries realize the worst thing we have here in America is freedom of speech, at least its real use. Its for protecting ourselves from government propaganda, not i can roll down the street spouting profanity and racial remarks to people for a giggle.

I'm talking about the usa, but the world in general. I wasn't aware it was illegal in the UK.

What I tried striking up a conversation about was about the after effects. Would it pave the way for more acceptance, or no?

I can't help but find case after case of the EU vs NA mentality online, but then again, I think it'll take a few generations to actually take effect.

CountlessClouds
02-11-2015, 01:16 AM
I don't see how making a person's disposition illegal is viable.
You can create laws that prevent them from acting on it, but what you're suggesting sounds like the attempt to make it a "thought crime," in which case, we'd be in 1984 where there is the universal surveillance and constant psychological investigation of every individual.
Sounds fun.


Where are you from? This happens almost everywhere but USA. My latest trip in Britain saw people get arrested for calling a black guy the "N" word. Later one of the taxi drivers explained you cant discriminate in anyway, you cant call people fat, racial names, you can still call peple stupid but across the pond you better hope your big enough to fight against an uprising of people if they catch you.

Im from America but anyone who gets out and visit countries realize the worst thing we have here in America is freedom of speech, at least its real use. Its for protecting ourselves from government propaganda, not i can roll down the street spouting profanity and racial remarks to people for a giggle.
Worst is a very subjective term. It's the ability to say and do those things without being shot on sight that is good. Eric Cartman's presentation "Why Ginger's are Evil," not so much. To call it good or bad is a logic error.

Grilleds
02-11-2015, 01:17 AM
Prejudice is just a premature judgement. It doesn't mean the same thing as bigotry. If someone walks into a store with a gun, and I assume they might try to rob it, that is also prejudice.

If we didn't have prejudice, we wouldn't be able to make predictions. So prejudice is kind of needed. People NEED to be able to form opinions on other people before knowing them, both positive and negative.

As for racism, and bigotry in general. That's also kind of a necessary evil, but explaining why is kind of difficult. People need to be able to lump other people into groups to hate and make fun of. Individually this is a bad thing, and often as a group this is also a bad thing, but in specific situations it can be beneficial. For example in a military setting, it's obviously easier for a soldier to kill someone if they already hate the enemy, so some bigotry is often encouraged. In a corporate or community setting, negative feelings about competition often bring a sense of unity, same with educational settings regarding rival schools.

It's the same with MOBA's. Every MOBA has a vocal minority that bashes the MOBA's competitors in order to build appreciation for their own game. I mockingly refer to this as "tribe vs tribe" mentality because I feel many people take it into a far too childish direction. But I do think that this actually does lead to a beneficial sense that a person is getting more out of their chosen game. Again, many people take it too far to the point where it's actually harmful.

tl;dr version:
Prejudice is like war and death. Everyone always fixates on the negative aspects of it, and thus fails to realize the many situations where it's actually a positive.

All that being said. Even if it was negative 100% of the time I'd still support it's right to exist as I value freedom of speech above just about everything else.

Of course don't let me get in the way of whatever cliche misanthropic rant you want to post about how human nature sucks or whatever.

Aurasai
02-23-2015, 03:33 AM
Relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM-HJT8_esM

VarenWolf
02-23-2015, 10:28 AM
Well first of its almost impossible to get rid of and if it was made illegal their would be way to many people in jail. Its basically human nature to judge others that are different. Is it always bad no but sometimes and I try my best to not h8 others most times do I sterotype but I try my best to get to know them but Its a thing human body does.

Jezereal
02-23-2015, 11:15 AM
As humans, we have limited brain space, thus we like to compress things! For example, we cant remember 10 billion peoples names... SO we group into VERY large categories such as Asian, or American, black, white, fat, ugly, even weird. These 'groups' we associate with assumptions from T.V. real life, even stories from other people. They are not the end all be all, but rather a what to expect. The more you live life the more you define these categories by your own standards and not what you 'assume'. Each person is individual. But we need these groups to associate pre evaluated ideas with people before hand. I do however condem hating someone based on a pre convieved notion, unless they have personally demonstrated the attriburte or belief.
EX1: I dislike you cause your black. Is NOT a good reason. You have pre judged the person.
EX2: I dislike you because you hate pizza. See how it's more specific and tied relevant to a belief/opinion that specific person has.
EX3: I dislike you because your arrogant. Again a valid reason, they have a personal attribute, not inclusive to skin color or any other factor, besides being human.

not/10char

VarenWolf
02-23-2015, 11:23 AM
As humans, we have limited brain space, thus we like to compress things! For example, we cant remember 10 billion peoples names... SO we group into VERY large categories such as Asian, or American, black, white, fat, ugly, even weird. These 'groups' we associate with assumptions from T.V. real life, even stories from other people. They are not the end all be all, but rather a what to expect. The more you live life the more you define these categories by your own standards and not what you 'assume'. Each person is individual. But we need these groups to associate pre evaluated ideas with people before hand. I do however condem hating someone based on a pre convieved notion, unless they have personally demonstrated the attriburte or belief.
EX1: I dislike you cause your black. Is NOT a good reason. You have pre judged the person.
EX2: I dislike you because you hate pizza. See how it's more specific and tied relevant to a belief/opinion that specific person has.
EX3: I dislike you because your arrogant. Again a valid reason, they have a personal attribute, not inclusive to skin color or any other factor, besides being human.

not/10char

so essentially your saying culture/governement dictates a general popluace about something because then you would be pretty close to correct.

Jezereal
02-23-2015, 11:35 AM
so essentially your saying culture/governement dictates a general popluace about something because then you would be pretty close to correct.

I generally try to avoid speaking of politics. BUt I am saying that which we observe without personal attestment to plays an influence on our thinking patters, until otherwise personally willingly replaced or inmproved upon. In other words, we assume things to be true, by what we see/hear/... until we personally learn otherwise.
EX1: Mom says the stove is hot when on. You don't touch stove when it's on. (Nothing learned personally, but an assumption is made.) (same if she said stove is cold, don't touch; wont find out.)
EX2: Mom says the stove is hot when on. You touch stove when it's on. (Both assumption given, and personal experience tell you, the stove is indeed hot.)
EX3: Mom says the stove is COLD when on. You touch stove when it's on. (Assumption is WRONG. Based on personal experience.)
A simplified example... But the principle is generally the same when it comes to matter of race or pre conceived ideas.

Trubblegum
02-23-2015, 04:02 PM
Wait, wouldn't we outlaw prejudice because we are prejudiced against prejudice?

BlueFast
03-04-2015, 10:48 PM
Prejudice can bring paranoia and awareness, which isn't a bad thing. Prejudice can also bring art and creativity, no matter if it's stereotypical or not.

Xenzzul
03-26-2015, 08:31 PM
The racists/sexists/sexualitist would start tossing their guns around, shouting "freedom of speech" and starting religion wars. As they have for thousands of years.

RippleApple
03-26-2015, 11:32 PM
The racists/sexists/sexualitist would start tossing their guns around, shouting "freedom of speech" and starting religion wars. As they have for thousands of years.

I find it funny that people are starting religious wars to argue for your point, actually. (http://lh3.ggpht.com/-vE2juBSihYg/VLkzqBgBIoI/AAAAAAABRyE/i2XA4rAkQn0/muslim-protest-sign-massacre-those-who-insult-islam_thumb%25255B6%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800)

DynamicMoves
03-27-2015, 03:15 PM
The racists/sexists/sexualitist would start tossing their guns around, shouting "freedom of speech" and starting religion wars. As they have for thousands of years.
Because it's a slippery slope.
What is outlawed after racism and sexism?

Shaman
03-31-2015, 09:57 AM
You couldn't enforce it, prejudice is one of those concepts that changes based on peoples views. Yes there is obvious in your face prejudice, but their is also other forms of prejudice that may not be harmful, but is still, "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." For example, liking someone because their black, before even knowing their character.


Those things are what makes us human. We were beasts until we discovered we could make homes and breed with similar-looking people (race), our minds became as one (religion), we took an active interest in our political structures through philosophy (politics) and we understood the concept of trade (wealth). These things were corrupted due to selfishness, not prejudice.
Those are still concepts that separate us, Without Race, Without Class, Without Religion, Without Wealth; we still possess Abstract thought, Promiscuous combination of ideas, Mental symbols, and Generative computation So no, that stuff isn't what makes us human, its a social constract, a by product that comes after being human.

AllknowingWolf
04-23-2015, 01:23 PM
Law doesn't stop lawbreakers from breaking said law, so you won't stop the thoughts, nor will you even stop the action. All it does is punish people who can't tell a joke, or say something angry just to vent may have others in thin skin cry about it. And if you makes laws for that. People would push for anti-hate speech, which would grow more. Laws would lead to stricter laws that people would still break it...and I'm sure the government would love more money to spend if this 'law' would fine people. But if we're talking jail time. I'm sorry but that's where murderers and actual important crimes belong.

Celloguy12
06-14-2015, 09:49 PM
Everyone is predjudice in a way. When you see some black guy with a hoodie, and sagging pants many people are automatically going to assume hes a hoodlum.

LanceUppercutt
06-15-2015, 05:59 AM
Homo erectus and Neanderthals disappeared due to Homo sapiens beating them in the war of survival. Yes, we modern humans have some Neanderthal blood remaining in certain populations groups, but that is what remained through the racemixing millennia ago.

that is subspecies mixing (at least for neanderthals and homo sapiens sapiens, not race

Pokechu212
06-15-2015, 06:05 AM
Outlawing prejudice is as trivial as outlawing crime. Even if people stop expressing prejudice, people are most likely going to keep their distance from a fat, mexican man in a tank top sitting outside by a busy street.

Not to sound racist or anything, but it's probably true.