Well-Intentioned but Wrong

February 17, 2014 Despite good intentions, peoples prescriptions on how not to be prejudiced can often be misfires !f someone were to as" me what actions or e#pressions would $ualify a person as prejudiced % being guilty of se#ism, for e#ample % ! would respond saying that statements such as &all ' are filthy and immoral and actions such as not hiring people of ' despite their being disposed to a job are e#amples of prejudice ! am inclined to gi(e a general rule, but for the sa"e of bre(ity, ! wont )owe(er, some groups, notably those who claim to represent and ad(ocate for &the oppressed are arguing for a far more inclusi(e and more easily achie(able definitions for what is racist and se#ist, etcetera *uch new definitions often e#clude the possibility of much open discussion and opinion without the possibility of one being defined as prejudiced +his is a pattern which has been followed in other areas of society % notably the war on drugs % wherein politicians and acti(ists feel as though they are fighting the good fight by enacting restricti(e measures when, in fact, such actions usually result in either rules and definitions which are meaningless, or e(en destructi(e +he following is from a list of general actions and statements which are defined as prejudiced, they can be found on croo"sandliars com ,ost of the items represent genuine instances of prejudice, though far too many items classify open discussion as a form of prejudice ! include only the offending items-% 4 Refusing to hire, associate with or otherwise interact with members of the group, including segregating the group in society ! often wonder whether this is just a case of poor wording % which would be forgi(eable but disappointing .ny person with the ability to hire new employees will ha(e to refuse to hire an indi(idual who is a member of a particular ethnic group, for e#ample, if there were better/$ualified person outside the group % it would be racist were the person in charge of personnel to refuse to hire them solely because of their ethnicity and to hire someone with inferior $ualifications . reader might chastise me, saying that this is clearly what the writer, 0enneth 1uinnell, meant +hat may well be true, but the ne#t worse thing to a bad rule is an unclear one, and such unclear e#pression is easy to correct yet remains uncorrected ! would not be so moti(ated to address this item were it not for the fact that some organisations actually use this list as a basis for their policy on prejudice 5 Opposing government programs that disproportionately help a group that faces a history or present mar ed by discrimination or mistreatment 2ho decides which programmes are helping and which are hindering3 )ere, a libertarian who sees welfare as a curse is defined as prejudiced because they ha(e a differing outloo" 4ather than ha(ing an officially determined definition of help, with those who opposite it being defined as racist, for e#ample, what is necessary is an open discussion on the best course of action 2ere ! to agree, for the sa"e of argument, that such programmes do help, how much help should we gi(e3 .m ! prejudiced if, in a discussion, ! oppose a programme which disproportionately helps a disad(antaged group, but ad(ocate one which helps them to a lesser e#tent or in a different way3 ! "aying you now better than the group does what is happening to them or what is best for them ! can understand how a smug claim to superior "nowledge, especially concerning ones own situation, can be $uite abrasi(e5 it is hardly prejudiced, howe(er +here are, necessarily, cases in which someone who is a member of a disad(antaged group will ha(e less "nowledge of the o(erall situation and the best way in which to proceed than an outsider

+his reminds of a tendency which ! notice in a certain fla(our of those who consider themsel(es representati(es of underdogs % a thoughtless and aggressi(e attitude to the ad(antaged, the educated and the successful Any fool can lampoon a king or a bishop or a billionaire. A trifle more grit is required to face down a mob, or even a studio audience, that has decided it knows what it wants and is entitled to get it. 6hristopher )itchens, 7etters to a 8oung 6ontrarian )onestly, before ! read that paragraph as a teenager ! used to share something of this aggression, before ! realised that in the case of non/(ictims or 2.*9s, while they are not necessarily right all the time, they are not necessarily wrong all the time, either !t is una(oidable in any significant con(ersation with a disad(antaged indi(idual to say, or to imply, that one "nows better # $enying real-life e%periences or statistically-proven challenges that the group disproportionately faces +his is another e#ample of one for which it is hard to discern the point ! dont thin" anyone would actually deny someones account of their own e#periences, short of accusing them of lying5 such an accusation is not prejudiced in itself ! thin", howe(er, that 1uinnell is referring to when people deny that anecdotes reflect a general condition within society % they dont, of course5 personal accounts can be enlightening, but for one anecdote one can always find a contradictory one % thus, only hard and uni(ersal facts should be used to ma"e policy Dear reader, you may ha(e noticed how $uac" treatment:remedy sellers only publish personal testimonials, ne(er hard research, on their products .nyone can abuse anecdotal e(idence *tatistically pro(en3 1uinnell must be aware that our understanding of the facts changes, people who gather and interpret statistics can be mista"en ;or e(en malicious<, and their methods can be fallacious and are often impro(ed +o choose a topical e#ample, the statistics on false rape allegations range from 1 => to 4=> % is it possible that some of these studies ha(e fallacious methods3 !m sure that my reader will be familiar with $uestions which, as"ed in a certain way, can condition for a certain response !f ! dont accept a gi(en set of statistics which indicate disad(antage, am ! prejudiced3 ?o % statistics re$uire constant challenge and con(ersation, one cannot simply accept a certain piece of research as re(ealed truth and define anyone who disagrees as prejudiced @ur understanding changes constantly and we re$uire an open and fle#ible discussion which reflects such dynamism && Ignorance of the history, challenges, language and culture that causes the group problems &' (eing blind to the differences between the group and other groups A(eryone is, thus, prejudiced with respect to at least one group5 ! wont tolerate hatred and hasty judgements, but ! respect anyones choice to choose their own research topics &) "tating that your group faces the same problems as a group that statistically faces more of the problem or more intense versions of the problem ! ha(e ne(er actually heard an e#ample of this +o choose another current e#ample, ! ha(e heard men claim that they suffer domestic (iolence too, usually $uoting a proportion of around 40> though !(e ne(er heard them say that such conditions are &the same @nce more- 2hose statistics3 .re there reasons to thin" that theyre false3 2e always ha(e cause to challenge them !f there were people who wrongly claim that their group faces &the same problems as another, this can only be a case of misinformation or stupidity % it is hardly malice &4 *elling members of the group that they shouldn+t be ,sensitive- about problems that they face +his, of course, depends on the definition of sensiti(e and, once more, its difficult to tell what he

means ! thin" it might be best to respond with a personal e#ample % do comment or contact me if ! ha(e totally misunderstood this !n one discussion, a member of a disad(antaged group directed some personal comments to me, ! responded cordially, saying that their beha(iour was undesirable5 their response was to say that they are, as a member of a disad(antaged group, entitled to such beha(iour because of their e#periences +his is bac"ward % the same standard, politeness and good form should be e#pected of e(eryone5 ! understand, if someone has had a difficult e#perience, that they might get upset during a discussion and !m (ery willing to forgi(e them if they apologise !t is my prerogati(e, as the person who was insulted, to forgi(e5 rather, they didnt apologise and forga(e themsel(es ! thin" that my actions are what 1uinnell is addressing ! understand that people might often be sensiti(e, but a system which entitles a section of people to spea" as they please while others cant, while being unfair, can only to more aggression, profanity and personal attac"s &5 .sing the term ,politically correct- /or some variation0 to dismiss complaints from the group about discrimination or pre1udice directed at them Politically Correct: demonstrating progressive ideals, esp by avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or udgmental, esp concerning race and gender 2orld Anglish Dictionary !t always amuses me when concepts li"e this and )ealth and *afety, usually with the obligatory &gone mad, are transformed from well/intentioned policies into insults !f one defines &politically correct to mean, collo$uially, the o(er/bearing or irrele(ant application of the original definition, then ! hope, dear reader, you ha(e already thought of some redolent e#amples !n 1BBB, ,ayor .nthony . 2illiams, ,ayor of 2ashington D 6 , accepted the resignation of Da(id )oward for the offence of using the word &niggardly, due, apparently, to its containing the same phonemes as a certain racist epithet 2illiams later re/hired )oward ?onetheless, is this not an e#ample of political correctness in the derogatory sense, maybe e(en &gone mad3 ! ha(e learned that the person who brought the complaint against )oward was ,arshall Crown, but ! ha(ent been able to learn his race 4ace doesnt matter to me, statements and actions stand on their own Cut, if ! were to find that he is .frican/.merican, would his claims about &niggardly be (alid3 and in(alid if he is white3 1uinnells point would imply that this is the case Dnfortunately, sometimes peoples well/intentioned claims, whether they are or are not a member of the group in $uestion, can be misfires .s a society we must discuss such cases, to determine their (alidity, it is not enough to simply accept one testimony and define disagreement as prejudice *ociety needs people who call out statements that are well/intentioned but wrong for what they are +o conclude, rules such as these appear to be well/intentioned, but this doesnt proof them against being wrong and ultimately destructi(e ! hope to always be wary of edicts which assume "nowledge which is unchallengeable, and ones which prescribe double standards @n a similar note to one ! mentioned earlier- underdogs are not necessarily wrong all the time, but they are not necessarily right all the time, either. A(erything must be challenged