Prejudging others when living in a diverse or multiehnic society can be a great tool in keeping safe. Anyone with wisdom and common sense will use prejudice when being around others they don't know personally. If one lives and interacts just with his tribe up in the mountians herding goats, that is one thing, but most here today must interact with a variety of people not like ourselves. For example, I drive by a group of 100 blacks and not feel threatened. They are all leaving their rural church after services. I drive past 100 whites and have my guard up. They are all members of some motorcycle gang that appear hostile. If we didn't judge a book by its cover, and not take the people and environment in which we are in at the time into account, we could be asking for trouble. If I am forced to go downtown in an area with high crime and do business, and then see some scruffy guys stare me down and start coming my way---I would judge them to be hostile. I don't know them personally, but I have prejuded them by their looks, their location and their actions. This is what any logical person would do. A person free of any prejudical thoughts would take their wife and young children on a stroll at midnight in a high crime area. Such a person would be a fool, but at least he wouldn't be prejudiced.
I'm not sure if you are just using this as a thought experiment or apologism for bigots. If the former, fair enough. Though this is pretty much common knowledge. Prejudice is part of human nature, one of our many mental functions that prioritizes efficiency over effectiveness due to the survival rate in nature this promotes. Similarly religion evolved because it's more efficient for humans to have a set answer than to constantly seek one. Argument evolved due to the social importance in winning arguments rather than the macro benefits of actually being correct. Likewise fireflies are selected for stupidity because random food-searching is more energy-efficient than using intelligence to find food for a creature that lives for very little time and can be killed by pretty much anything. If the latter... that's where my examples start to matter more. The problem with a bigot is that he uses generalizations to speculate at a higher level. He doesn't just assume a ghetto neighborhood is more dangerous than a gated community. He speculates that a black man living in the gated community has devious plans for him, creates quasi-theories about why blacks are inferior, votes on the basis of race alone, forbids his children to date blacks. He first focuses on the arbitrary trait. Then he takes it beyond the level of practical "common sense" generalization. This is a good illustration of why I think "common sense" is a terrible device for creating policy. It's great for practical life if you considerconsistent behavior over the long term and are expecting modest returns on investment. But when you take it to the abstract level, where being correct is important, it sucks. It's also very, very possible (inevitable, in fact) that many biases formed such as that will be the opposite of reality due to the factors of primacy and cognitive dissonance. That's how superstitions form, as well as all the old wives' tales that people try to live by-- and always fail.
This is exactly why any kind of perfect policy can never exist. Because common sense (a.k.a prudence) cannot be truly legislated. So you draw the line at the best place possible and legislate accordingly. Every policy made by man will always be flawed in some regard. If the people enamored with utopian ideologies could ever understand this (predominantly on the left), it would make everything easier for everyone.
Not a left/right thing. There's plenty of utopian idealism behind the ideology of those on the right as well - just traveling in a different direction.
I think we should ALL be discriminating.. but not based on color. I certainly taught my children to discriminate over who they chose as friends..
I would need to know what your exact definition of a bigot is and some examples. "Bigot," "prejudice," "civil rights," and "cruel and unusual punishment" are just a few terms that are so often miscontrued from their original meaning by some enlightened progressive to suit his/her own bias and agenda.
I think you are deliberately confusing discrimination with caution. If I walk on ice on a pond and I test it to see if it is safe I am not prejudice of the ice. If I walk out on it and assume it is safe then I am an idiot. Never assume.
The next evil will come waving an american flag and wearing a cross... also, in a white America it will probably be a white honkey too, to more fit in with the rest of the predjudging types...
As you say, though -- that's judging, not prejudging. It might be a hasty judgment -- they might just be looking for directions to the arena where their pro-wrestling show is going to be staged -- but it's not, strictly speaking, an example of prejudice. Again, that's judgment, not prejudgment. If we already know that it's a dangerous area, then it's a matter of judgment. If we only know that it's a black neighborhood, then assuming that it's a high crime area just because there are a lot of black people there is an example of prejudice.
The truth is that "common sense" is a lie. It's intuition, which varies person to person, especially across cultures and subcultures. It's not an accurate reflection of the truth but a prejudiced assumption based on things taken for granted (whether true or not). Policy requires something generalizable. That requires science or at least some approximation. A bigot is basically one who takes prejudice to an insane level. Not real specific... kind of like "overeater". But that's the limits of human language when discussing general concepts. I used a racist as an example. The key is taking prejudice from the point of making quick practical decisions to building a worldview
