In Defense of Prejudice

This article made me very interesting. It was difficult to understand for a long time, but as I became deeper I became more and more interested. I was impressed very much, given the idea Jonathan Rauch presented in his article, especially his situation.

In his article, Rauf's work is to protect from prejudice. But he clarified what he did not think it was right, but he realized it was part of humanity. I agree with Raaf's view. While reading this article, I came up with a way to agree or disagree with my blog post. I noticed that Rauch has demonstrated to a large extent some of my arguments in his thesis.

Rauf criticizes all people "to eliminate prejudice." He should make it clear that this is not an eradication, but an impossible virtue, and they should try to correct it and criticize it. I fully agree with him about this topic. There is no point in trying to completely eliminate prejudice. This is impossible. Millions of people attempted it, but they all failed. The more I see it, the more they can resist you as you try to force your beliefs against someone. If you say that his grandfather is fighting for the Alliance to your old Southerner, he should be friends with the next African American. And he may refuse. The more you try to make him, the more he will refuse. This is not just a case of prejudice, but how the world works in any situation.

In fact, I am biased to using it as an example. I quickly thought that the old white Southerner who had family relations with the southern provinces would oppose the idea of ​​social interaction with the black people. I think that is my prejudice.

Everyone is prejudiced in reality! Crazy, annoying free anti biased people are prejudiced !!! Overcome yourself! You call me prejudice just as you call myself a bias. Treating someone as prejudice is to match your prejudice. I am very upset, I can not understand that they are merely producing an endless prejudice cycle. This is a biased prejudice to bias others to prejudice others, just as someone prejudices others to call it "spic" or "fagot".

Rauch's article starting from page 507 really drew my attention. Rauch uses the word "fagot" on the subway to tell stories of some teenagers. Because of his sexual orientation, Rauf quickly became frightened. After his brief fear, Raaf noticed that he was crazy. These children did not talk, mention, or intimidate about him. This encounter made him interested in his own fear reaction. He noticed that it was only a word that he changed him from a single person to a gay person.

Rauff 's point out in his article is that speech can not produce violence. These words can only be used by them. If minorities think these words are harmful, they will hurt. Even if they choose to ignore them, they will not suffer. The best way to combat 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.