Read on Twitter
For me personally, I consider prejudiced action to be 'bad' when it fails to update based on countering evidence, and 'fine' if it does update.
SOME EXAMPLES:
SOME EXAMPLES:
Your stereotype of redheads being untrustworthy comes from an anti-redhead movement from 50 years ago. You personally don't know any redheads to support this stereotype, and there's no statistical evidence to support the stereotype.
If you still believe it after this: BAD.
If you still believe it after this: BAD.
You, a small woman, are afraid of men, because men are the ones who follow you home and make you feel unsafe, not women.
You meet Joe, who behaves consistently respectfully. If you are still afraid of Joe after evidence to the contrary: BAD.
You meet Joe, who behaves consistently respectfully. If you are still afraid of Joe after evidence to the contrary: BAD.
Things that are not bad: General prejudices based on evidence. Men are more likely to commit assault upon others, this is statistically supported. It's ok to be afraid of a man until you are provided evidence to the contrary, like Joe.
Some stereotypes aren't statistically supported because there hasn't been proper research done - but a prejudice from consistent individual experience is still not necessarily bad, as long as you are careful to check your biases and continue to update on counter information!
Pattern recognition is okay. It's okay to notice trends correlated with demographics. It's okay to take steps to protect yourself. Just be aware of the failure modes that come from doing this, and be sure to be flexible if anything challenges the pattern you've recognized.
