Saturday, February 04, 2006

Prejudice vs. Discrimination

That’s the major paradigm shift of the 21st century -- that every discussion that was dominated by the need for “more,” evolves to the discussion of “better.” “More” was the driver of life in the 20th century. However, once there is sufficient, simply more is usually not better -- as in the phrase, “More is better.” The transformation in understanding is that “Better is something else entirely”

Because of the effectiveness of mass media and propaganda techniques, what was famously done was to substitute one attribute for another, such as in equating “more” to “better,” when on careful reflection -- more and better, are totally different qualities.

In that same way, “discrimination” was equated to “prejudice,” when they are actually the opposites. The master observer of these propaganda and mass media techniques was the journalist, George Orwell, who gave the alarm on such practices in his two famous works, Animal Farm and 1984. He illustrated how two mutually contradictory and exclusive thoughts could be manipulated to be the same.

To “discriminate” is simply to be able to tell the difference -- between one thing and another. It does NOT necessarily imply a lesser regard and treatment; it could mean an even higher regard and valuing of what one has been able to discriminate as superior attributes. Therefore, to ban all discriminations, does not allow one to distinguish good from bad, good from evil, right from wrong, better from worse.

“Prejudice” on the other hand, is actually this prohibition on making the proper discriminations as to what is good and bad, right and just. Most of life is good with a rare bad -- so the advice not to be allowed to make that distinction, determine the exception, sets one up for deception and manipulation -- which is what the mass media is perfecty suited for. It is one-way transmission of values imposed by one group of self-selected people on every other. Freedom of expression for everyone is not their objective; freedom only to impose "their" opinions is what that mass media is all about -- their control.

But that is simply one manifestation of media and not the ultimate evolution of media, which is transpiring as we speak. It is the living, breathing dynamism of ideas being formed in the dialogue -- and not merely conclusions imposed after the truth have been predetermined by the self-selected group -- who determine that they know better than everybody else what is best for everybody else. They are commonly denoted as “liberals”-- which supposedly implies and denotes a moral and intellectual superiority (as though at sometime in a clouded past, God passed down another set of Commandments, that superseded His previous writings, and appointed this special class of priests to interpret and administer these edicts).

The major prohibition then became, that it was forbidden to distinguish this difference between “discrimination” and “prejudice,” and by that device, one had to follow the pronouncements of the self-appointed class, that such as they pronounced, was what was “politically, morally and socially correct” -- unquestionably.


At February 05, 2006 11:01 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The present political dichotomy can be characterized as the difference between positive emotions and negative emotions.

The liberal/left/Democrats have nothing else to say but personal attacks exhibiting their full emotional range of humiliation, anger, rage. You can't build a sustainable culture (society) on just negative emotions. They have to build on something positive; it's not enough just spraypainting over positive producers' artworks, knocking over trash cans and vandalizing bathrooms -- as the definitive statements about what they are all about, who they are.

For some time now, the leading edge of the intelligentsia in the world has shifted over to the right because that's where they are more likely to be welcomed now. The left, has gone into a defensive posture -- of denial, hoping for a return of the long lost good old days (largely imaginary), in which they are the swashbuckling vanguard of human progress -- instead of merely just trying to hang on to their past glory and diminishing prospects for the future.

Even the Chumpski's of the world now realize they had no intellectual foundations upon which to build a better society but were merely used by the mainstream press as hollow intellectual scarecrows -- to fend off the intellectual appeals of the right.

At February 05, 2006 11:29 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The problem of the “intellectual” left is that they became mainly the unionized teaching professionals -- rather than remaining independent and in the marketplace of merit rather than seniority. By unionizing in that way, they undermined their ability to speak for themselves -- but ceded that authority over to their union boss.

They’re better off having greater autonomy and individualism -- than simply walking the picket lines for more pay like every other group trying to impose their demands on society. Intellectual leadership doesn’t work that way; it can’t be imposed. People have to come willingly to embrace those ideas as worthwhile -- and not be coerced into them by strongarm union tactics.

The greatest value is that which is given freely -- and recognized as priceless. To put a market demand on everything -- with no allowance for freedom in that agreement, renders that exchange worthless. That is, in a free market, there is no demand for that service or product -- and the producer/provider of such, can never overcome their feelings that their money was gotten at the point of a gun, fraudulently. Which is their often remarked observation that they have no feelings of self-worth and dignity -- because society doesn’t pay them enough

Respect is earned and not coerced. All the money in the world can never wash away that taint.


Post a Comment

<< Home