Food for thought...
I was always raised to be open-minded and respectful of others. I attended school where whites were the minority. I've never thought of myself as being prejudiced. When I moved to Alaska though, I heard stories about how the local Natives are belligerent drunks. In the 4 years I've lived here, I'd have to say that 90% of the times I've been bothered by a drunk, it's been a Native.

Recently there was a program on the National Geographic Channel about the Alaska State Troopers. Most of the episodes revolved around Natives getting into trouble while under the influence.

Which begs me to ask the question: Is it prejudice or racism if it's true?
(WillF http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverfischdotnet/, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 19:26, 23 replies)

The natives
are drinking because their lives/way of life were ruined by white settlers (see also Inuit and Aborigines)
( The Scrunt Wants a Dozen Pints, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 19:28, closed)

And indeed
The whites deliberately got the natives hooked on alcohol (and boy, many of them were predisposed to it, it seems). As then they had to exchange goods or labour to get more. Thus the whites subjugated some more peoples! Ironic Hooray!
( drunkenoaf, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 21:06, closed)

Had Inuit/Aborigines/etc really not discovered alcohol themselves?

( idonthaveafunnynickname Drink-Aware? Sure. I'm aware I want another drink., Fri 2 Apr 2010, 2:26, closed)

No.
The inner part of Aus is mostly arid desert, while Greenland and other places Eskimos live are obviously very cold. Neither place supports much plant life - certainly little that isn't either poisonous or doesn't have to be used for something else, like food or medicine - and as such there is little material to ferment.
(rampants, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 15:49, closed)

These days
everything is racist. You've only got to say hello to a person with different coloured skin and yep, "your a racist".

Personally (And with my tin-foil hat on), I think it's been engineered deliberately to make us all hate each other, rather than focus the hate on those that deserve it.
(dchurch bah, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 19:50, closed)

The definition of racism...
... is when someone treats a person less well than s/he would otherwise do, for the sole reason of their skin colour -or otherwise their unalterable natural physical attributes which are a result of their genetic background, such as the shape of their nose etc.

If you treat them badly because of something else, it's not racism.
If you treat them badly because you treat *everyone* badly, then you're not a racist, you're just a knob.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 20:05, closed)

If
it's skin colour alone, how come anti-sematists are called racists as well? Is it just that the media is dumbed down enough to no longer care?
(dchurch bah, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 20:20, closed)

Well...
I forgot about those :)

Technically speaking, the Jewish people are a "race" in the sense that they're genetically linked.

However, all humans on Earth are genetically linked. So it's really an arbritary label.

According to my definition - yes, antisemitism could be included because it's based on a genetic factor over which the person has no choice. But I think it's really silly of anyone to label themselves as part of a clan - based on genetics - but who has otherwise no different genetic attributes from anyone else. It's even more silly for someone to discriminate against such people, for exactly the same reason.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 20:30, closed)

"Anti-Semitic" is a nonsensical term anyway, because Arabs are also a Semitic people.
"Anti-Judaist" would be more accurate.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 21:53, closed)

True
...I think it was that famous Anti-Judaist, Bobby Fischer who said "Jews are not a race of people, therefore I am not a racist."
(dchurch bah, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 23:17, closed)

It's prejudice
if you have an opinion one way or the other based on the person being a member of any group.

So, it's prejudiced to say black men have big cocks, for example.
( Ungersven would support SpankyHanky's patreon, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 20:28, closed)

Not necessarily
If you say "in general, this attribute is true about this particular race" then that is not prejudice, because: a) it doesn't treat people badly; b) it may just be a true statement of fact; and c) the fact that it's a generalisation is explicitly stated.

As an aside - even if the speaker did not state that it was a generalisation, do you know any black men who would be insulted that someone presumed they were well-endowed? :) It may be a generalisation, and certainly not true in all cases - but your specific example is largely thought of as a positive thing.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 20:49, closed)

actually
the connotations of it in that context could be construed as negative since the time and place that generalisation sprung from meant it negatively- large genitals were linked in popular imagination to uncontrollable sexuality (raping white women, animal-like, savagery etc.)

It's different now obviously, but the point stands that generalisations even if superficially positive are not necessarily so.

//takes history hat off//
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 0:34, closed)

I was not aware of that connection
Weird for people to associate large genitals with sexual assault.

It's like saying that if someone's good at maths, it means they're likely to be a tax fraudster! Or if someone's a fast runner, it means they put that skill to use as a mugger.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 20:09, closed)

Well it's the past
people weren't rational, but certainly that particular belief that black men were wildly oversexed resulting in sexual violence was around until the 1950s. It's weird but true
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 22:43, closed)

No
Even if it is true and non-negative it's still prejudice if it informs your views on people based on group membership.
( Ungersven would support SpankyHanky's patreon, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 2:34, closed)

More or less.
It's prejudice if you hold such an opinion that has no rational or verifiable basis.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 21:54, closed)

That's not prejudice
It's just irrationality :)

Your statement described religion perfectly, for example.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 23:54, closed)

And belief in other silly, comfortingly human things like love, justice, order and the meaning of life.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 1:34, closed)

Umm, that's got nothing to do with irrationality
The evidence for the existence of love is in abundance.
Justice is a human concept, which may relate to man-made laws; or to a feeling of satisfaction when you see natural justive. Nothing irrational there.
The "meaning of life" is a very vague term, which you would have to use in a sentence in order for me to be able to respond.

All these concepts have nothing to do with the irrationality of believing in an invisible sky-man who listens to prayers.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 15:46, closed)

They have no basis in fact - they're irrational at best and downright arrogant at worst.
What makes you think love is anything other than the brain experiencing a debilitating, fever-like hormone overload? What makes you think justice is anything other than the mindless enforcement of arbitrary laws drawn up by long-dead aristocrats? What makes you think there is any kind of purpose behind the human race's existence, given that the entire universe is governed by random, chaotic events at all levels? What makes you think we're anything more than mere animals (but smug and conceited animals with our collective heads shoved firmly up our own arses)?

But please, feel free to gloss over such huge logical fallacies and pursue your own petty, impotent little crusade against the beliefs of religious people - who for the most part mind their own business, don't harm anyone else and respect the beliefs of others even if they don't agree with them. I'm sure St. Dawkins will reward your good work in the afterlife.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sat 3 Apr 2010, 3:09, closed)

Nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing.

And this suits lots of us just fine.
(Legion, Sun 4 Apr 2010, 8:40, closed)

Well I assume that you are religious
Look, don't take this personally. I don't want to insult religious people. They're not bad people (well - the ones who don't go around killing other people who don't believe in the same sky fairy, anyway) - it's just that their beliefs are irrational.

You appear to be confusing the words "intangible" and "irrational".

What makes you think love is anything other than the brain experiencing a debilitating, fever-like hormone overload?

Nothing. In fact you're probably quite correct. So the name that we give this hormone overload just happens to be "love". It has its basis in chemistry. It makes us feel good. Nothing irrational about that at all.

What makes you think justice is anything other than the mindless enforcement of arbitrary laws drawn up by long-dead aristocrats?

Well for the most part it's not "mindless": the laws have basis in common sense (most of them). Theft is illegal for good reasons. There is nothing irrational about that.

What makes you think we're anything more than mere animals...

We are animals. There's no reason to think anything different.

There are no "logical fallacies" in any of this.
There are, however, huge logical fallacies in thinking that just because you may have happened to be born in England (or wherever you were born), and happen to have been brought up in a Christian community (or whatever is true for you) - then YOUR religion is somehow "more correct" than the religion of, for example, someone who was born in India into a Sikh community.

It's an accident of birth, my friend. And as for "respecing the beliefs of others" - I do respect your right to hold whatever beliefs you want. And if all religious people kept their views as a private, personal matter then the rest of us would probably feel no need to comment on them whatsoever. Unfortunately, because of the fact that - for example - Christian fundamentalists go around bombing abortion clinics in America; and a little man living in a palace in Rome tells Africans that they're not allowed to use condoms to protect themselves from HIV - then we DO feel the need to comment on it.

Oh sure, you are not one of the fundamentalists - and if you just live your own life without telling others what to do then I have no problem with you at all. But instead of taking issue with me for criticising the concept of religion, you should direct your energy towards criticising the fundamentalists who make your religion look bad. They're doing you a disservice.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Sun 4 Apr 2010, 11:49, closed)