In defense of prejudice
[2023-02-18 00:18:19]
Jonathan Rauch believes that there is prejudice as long as there is true freedom of speech and the last thing that society should do is to eradicate racial discrimination and other prejudice. He said that prejudice is not a good-looking phenomenon, but because it is too difficult to eradicate bias. Regardless of who you are, there are people who do not like your colleagues. So the real problem should not be a way to eradicate prejudice but a way to make full use of prejudice.
Another very important concept he mentioned in this article is knowledge pluralism, which enables expression of various forms of prejudice. Exclusion of prejudice actually prevents attempts to eliminate prejudice as it means that everyone shares the same prejudices, ie those with authority.
Then there is a purismism in a position opposed to pluralism. It insists that society can only disappear until the last sign of prejudice. In addition, they believe that speech is currency of prejudice and as long as they are in us, we will never be safe. However, as I saw in this article, the author opposes this.
The principle of pluralism is that peoples of different races, religions and political beliefs can coexist peacefully in the same society. In addition, his argument is that "it is a way to fully utilize bias, not a way to eradicate bias." (P351, p3) For example, there are many races in this country, but we have integrated different cultures and become our new culture.
Defining words as violence or prejudice is oppression, pretending to be doing something about violence or oppression by fighting words and thoughts, there is no way to solve this. (P357, p31) However, I think that bullying is violent, for example, bullying means to threaten to hurt or scare someone.
The Atlantic monthly magazine in March 2003 is concerned with your introversion: customs and needs of less-known groups. "
But these words can not produce violence, only prejudiced people can produce violence. If you chase words after prejudice you will not solve the problem. If minorities think these words are harmful, they will hurt. Even if they choose to ignore them, they will not suffer. Prejudice is to avoid accusations. Talking about prejudice to others is useless, it will make them more difficult to work. The world will never be fair, but if people use the right technology, it is likely to shrink.
In the article, "For defense of prejudice: why inflammatory rhetoric must be protected" article by Jonathan Rauf: Charles R. Lawrence III and the author "Discussion on imposing restrictions on racial discourse It is caused by harm and should not ignore its victims. "The writer has expressed his views on freedom of speech and prejudice, especially racists. Regarding the benefits of prejudice speech, the two writers opposed at all. The influence on ethnic minorities, whenever he thinks that racist speech should be important, Laurence is worthless in prejudice speech, and the "free speech" in the United States I think that should not be included in the content of. When allowed
Greg Johnson's "Defense Prejudice" collects 45 papers, speech, commentary, and commentary on a wide range of topics including white nationalism, alternative rights, "substitute light", Donald Trump phenomenon, sexual politics, cosmopolitanism . , Freemasonry, Old Rights and Jewish Problems. Articles on Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, such as Adolf Hitler, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, Leo Strauss, William Pierce, Harold Covington, Jonathan Bowden, J Philippe Rushton, Dominique Venner, Gilad Atzmon, Yoav Shamir, Milo Yiannopolous. Of course Donald Trump. Greg Johnson once more proved that he combined theory with practice, tying the subject's comments to the eternal truth, and always focusing on the conditions of white survival and prosperity.
"Greg Johnson keeps his prejudices while continuing his previous work, it is an independent multifaceted corpus, a prose's collection is a coherent mixture of precious thinking