Does it matter? Because if it does, it's advocating for (racial?) profiling and/or singling one demographic out, which is both illegal (maybe not in the UK since it doesn't have a constitution?), amoral, and contrary to one of the core principles of current-day law, i.e. "innocent until proven guilty".
But do tell, what do you think is the group and what do you think should happen?
Obviously, because then you can focus your attention to that specific group.IE, if cable theft is exclusively carried out by white people from kensington then whenever something is stolen, you can just go there and catch the criminals.
Lol you literally have no idea what you are arguing against here.
I didnt think any sensible person would take the word everybody to mean literally every single person in existence. If I could go back and edit the post now I would happily change the word 'everybody' into 'lots of people' to satisfy the semantic pedants.
I dont think I have the energy to correct a random on the internet about exactly what my opinion is, other than to say I very much dont blame rich white men for anything and no I dont think there are exceptions to prejudice. But thats it, you can have the last word I'm out.
No, it was perfectly clear that you simply meant "everybody" that disagrees with you. That said, we know a large percentage of the population agrees with the President's immigrant framing because he was elected President based largely on that premise.
So, lots and lots of people are blaming immigrants for all our problems. I'm not sure rich white men need you to defend them to a random on the internet, they are doing just fine.
No I'm pretty sure by "everybody" he meant a loose quantity as in a large number of people. Of course such a quantity could be constrained e.g. to what can be seen on the news or maybe the local neighbourhood.
When someone says "everyone and their dog", they don't mean that the dogs are also participating.
Basically you failed to charitably interpret the person you are responding to and are now insisting on a reinterpretation that makes you look silly.
I mean think about what he wrote before that. "I look forward to", he is talking about the future in a sarcastic tone so the president being a counter example is his point. You're pinning him down onto the present and that is a strategic mistake.
Targeting rich people for being rich is targeting an attribute, not a group. The equivalent would be targeting black people for having dark skin, as opposed to targeting black people for doing crime.
Right, but targeting rich white men is a very specific group.
The equivalent would be poor black women, but I'm not really sure why thats important here.
>When is it ok for me to be prejudice towards a group of people?
When a group acts as a coordinated group. A political party for instance. This is not rocket science. You must link the individual(s) directly to the act, or you’re just stereotyping and making assumptions.
You are asking a lot of baiting questions. We know this isn't an attempt at dialogue, so just state your mind and be done with it instead of continuing of this silly bread crumb game man.
Arbitrary classification does not make a functional group. There is a distinct difference between a coordinated group and an abstract group that is the result of external parties adding people into named buckets for their own purposes.
Care to give some examples of what you consider to be coordinated groups, functional groups, and abstract groups?
I am assuming that your point is that prejudice is ok to some type of group but not other, but I am inferring that from your answer. Feel free to correct me.
It's an interesting coincidence that in these situations, the same people always blame %vulnerable group%, often going as far as making up evidence. Why do that? I suspect the reason is the vulnerability.
But do tell, what do you think is the group and what do you think should happen?