Predjudice

prejudge
/priːˈdʒʌdʒ/

verb

form a judgement on (an issue or person) prematurely and without having adequate information.
"it is wrong to prejudge an issue on the basis of speculation"

Here is a simple logical argument....

I hate being prejudged. I hate trying to explain my case when someone has made a decision about me, or for me, based upon insufficient or wrong information.

As I don't like it I can assume everyone else doesn't like and so let's give this a name and call it a morally bad thing to do.

PREJUDICE: It's a bad thing to do. no one likes it so try not to do it.

Even worse is being prejudged by a relatively arbitary fact about oneself, like thinking I'm a drummer so I must be a maniac who likes destroying hotel rooms or that I know nothing about music. (both examples that have been made about me. the first is not true but it would be nice sometimes to go to town on a Premier Inn with a Samurai sword...the second I suppose is up for debate)

Even worse than that would be judging me based upon a group that it is perceived that I belong too. Now we have prejudgments about that group, prejudgments that I belong to that group, prejudgments that I have opinions and beliefs associated with the prejudged opinions or beliefs that it has been prejudged that group has.

Now that's a lot of predjudice right there.

But far worse would be to do this based upon my the perception of how I look. It would be wrong to assume someone is angry because they look angry or sad because they look sad. Or that I'm into drugs because I have long hair and listen to trippy music.

So it's wrong by this logic to assume that someone is male because they look male, or black because they look black, or gay because they look gay. It is wrong to make any assumptions about an individual based upon an arbitary group that YOU have decided they belong to. Check these 'facts' out with the individual first.

It is therefore wrong to assume offence in someone because of the group YOU have decided they belong to and that you think you speak for the opinions and beliefs of that group. 

Groups do not have opinions or beliefs, individuals do.

To assume that all black people have a group opinion, that all Tories have another opinion, to act like these opinions are all in opposition in some huge cosmic dialectical struggle is to make a lot of assumptions. It is prejudicial and by this line of argument morally wrong.

When someone does something morally wrong the best course of action is to let them make their argument, and then try, in the kindest terms, to persaude them they are wrong. If you create a culture where people are open to this kind of criticism then you allow people to change their mind. And we end up with a kinder, wiser culture.

But to try and shut someone down because they have an opinion you think is wrong is dodgy on two levels. Firstly you are not letting the argument happen and not allowing for that person to be argued against and their opinion changed. 

But far worse is the fact that you are assuming you are objectively right, like some totalitarian god who's every utterance is beyond question. That is ugly and sucks.

So for me it seems pretty logical that to cancel, ban, censor, shut down, sack etc beliefs or opinions because of the percieved offense that they may cause to a person that you have assumed belongs to an arbitary group that you believe you can speak for in terms of that groups assumed beliefs and opinions is so full of prejudeice that it should be seen as a heinous moral crime in a society that believes itself civilised.

But in 2021 that is not the case.

But will history look back on our time and see this a good thing or something more in line with the Spanish Inquisition, or medieval witch trials, or the actions of Stalinist Russia or any other totalitarian dictatorships? Screaming at someone that people are dying because of an opinion is not an argument, it's cohersion based upon some sort of imagined heirachy of emotional righteousness. Just explain why the opinion is wrong, thats all you need to do.

So it is my opinion (and only an opinion, so keep your hair on) that political correctness is deeply prejudiced. But I am open to have my mind changed, don't worry, I won't try and have you sacked if you disagree with me. Opinions, like bad people, can change. It is one of the things hope is based upon.

Peace, love and tolerance!

I

Order, Freedom and The Mandalorian and the fall of Cara Dune

I have just finished watching series one and two of The Mandalorian which finally delivers everything any Star Wars fan would want from a Star Wars sequel.

I have written elsewhere about the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy, this idea that in humanity's story there is a tug between the ordered perfection of Apollo and the chaotic hedonism of Dionysus. That Apollo and Dionysus were sons of Zeus, suggests that these two attributes are part of a whole, and their two and fro tugging is an essential part of character of Zeus, who was of course, king of the gods.

The Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy underpins Greek tragedy and in so doing, most great drama.

And this dichotomy plays out beautifully in The Mandalorian, who through-out the series learns to balance his adherence to the Mandalorian code with his own personal love and devotion to 'the kid'.

But in the Star Wars world Apollonian order is represented by the Empire. Too much order is a bad thing, it becomes an ideology where a whole planet can be destroyed in the name of creating order. The antidote to this of course, is the American myth of the 'good sheriff'. It's a different kind of order, where power is thrust onto someone who does not want power, but who's bravery and their belief good bestows them with the badge of office, and they go onto rule wisely. The suggestion being that it is their lack of want for power that holds the key to them being a good ruler. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What I found very interesting is how The Mandalorian is above all this, in the end he is driven by his love for Grogu. And towards the end we see there is a problem with this as this could unseat his moral centre, which has been provided by the Mandalorian code.

This comes to an apex when he removes his helmet to scan his face in 'The Believer'. The moment when he removes that helmet to get the facial-recognition scan declares that the welfare of Grogu is more valuable to Mando than his own lifelong moral code, something echoed in his message to Moff Gideon at the end of the episode. In that episode we see the Mandalorian have a discussion with Migs Mayfield about morals. Migs has none it seems, and does whatever he needs to to get by. He says that the order of the Republic (ie. the goodies) is no better than the order of The Empire. (I can't help but agree with this point.) But later we see Migs does have morals when he stands up and kills the captain of the Imperial base. For this Cara Dune, one of the many 'sheriffs that didn't want the job but are brave and good' grants Migs his freedom.

In the final episode the top baddie, Moff Gideon has the fnal showdown with the Mandalorian. Moff can be seen as The Mandalorian's shadow. They are both driven by the same 'interest' shall we say, in Grogu. When the Mandalorian falls into a stalemate with Moff, Moff delivers a speech, where he says that he has what he wants from Grogu (his blood) and all he wanted to do was study him as he was very precious, and if he stopped fighting he could take Grogu and go. This is a very reasonable thing to say. All Moff is trying to do is create order, and he needs to understand Grogu's powers to do this.

It is Moff's 'reasonableness' that makes him seem human at this point. We see The Mandalorian nearly agreeing to this but then of course Moff attacks; his 'reasonableness' was just a front. In reality he is still a power crazed Hitler with an unhealthy attachment to order.

The good life is not about order, it is the balance between order and freedom, which is personified in the Jedi.

As I was watching this a very real tug of war between order and chaos emerged, and Cara Dune (or in reality actress Gina Carano) was sacked from The Mandalorian and dropped from her agency.

This 'punishment' was for tweet she posted where she supposedly compared Nazi's to the victims of The Holocaust, the Jews to Republicans. 

Now in the tug of war between order and freedom is it right to ruin someones career over ANY comment they make on Twitter? Is this the right amount of order, or too much order? Are those who sacked her acting like The Empire? Or like a good sheriff, simply killing off a baddie?

Sometimes real life is not as black and white as mainstream drama.

Well, YOU get to be the good sheriff now...you have the badge and the gun...what would you do...?

Here is the tweet in question...

Here is my opinion on this tweet for what it's worth...

Firstly, the image I have not seen before and is very powerful, it demonstrates the true horror and ugliness of too much order. This poor woman, in complete fear, without her dignity being chased by what looks like children...the mob rules. Horrible...

Then Gina states what is a fact, and it fits the picture; 'Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbours...even by children'

This is true and it makes the point that the evils of an Empire like the Nazis could only have been carried out by normal people like you and me.  How could normal people like you and me end up committing atrocities like this?

Then follows a quote...I don't know where it comes from...(is Gina quoting herself here?)

The quote tries to answer this question. It says people don't realise that to exercise this sort of power, a government would have first had to make 'their own neighbours hate them for simply being Jews'

This I think is another statement of fact in my opinion.

She then asks the question 'how is it any different to hating someone for their political beliefs?' Well Gina there is a difference, Political beliefs are a personal choice and being a Jew is not. But she does not make this statement, she asks the question. It is for us to answer. It's clunky but I get her point and I do agree with it. And the Nazi's did the same to those with opposing political beliefs.

So why was she sacked?

We have a situation here where Gina Carano's has been punished by those in power. They have tried their best to destroy her career. And this is because she asked the question (to paraphrase) 

How was the hate instilled in normal people by the Nazi's towards the Jews any different to the hate being stirred up today against people with opposing political beliefs?

So let me clarify this...she does not compare Jews to Republicans. She does not mention Republicans. She compares their hate. She asks a question about this after stating two verifiable facts. 

My opinion is that comparing being a Jew to someones political beliefs is clunky, and I don't know why she is quoting this when it seems like her saying it. I would have made it more apparent that I was comparing the aspect of 'hate' but it's a tweet for Christ's sake...

So you are the good sheriff with the power...would you destroy her career for saying this, The fact that those in power are attempting to do this actually for me adds weight to the very point she is making. Who is the Moff Gideon in all of this? Is is Trump and the alt right or is it simply the media. When we finally find out who the real villain is and they remove their helmet, will it be Mark Zuckerberg (this is a joke btw)

Before I sign off I think it's worth posting a tweet from the Mandalorian himself (or to come back to reality, the actor Pedro Pascal.

 

Is this a fair comparison? Well no...those kids are not going to be carted off to a gas chamber. As a comparison to the Holocaust it's even more clunky than Gina's post. And it is specific in it's target, infering that those who put those kids in that cage are like those who put those Jews in that concentration camp.

I am not a Republican supporter, I am not right wing. I agree with both points made in these tweets. They make points that I think are valid, correct and coming from a morally good place. 

But they have different targets. Pedro is targeting the right and specifically the Trump administration where as we can guess that Gina is targeting those who are pouring hate on those who support Trump.

This must be therefore why she was sacked. She was sacked for her political beliefs. Pure and simple.

The story The Mandalorian tells is thousands of years old. That good comes from the balance of the Apollonian with the Dionysian. It is an eternal tug of war where the voices of order and freedom must both be welcomed and listened to. We must never think we are on the right side of history with an absolute say on what is morally correct. That is where all the atocities start.

Let's try and work at getting along and stop this idea that it's okay to ruin someones career because they said something you don't think is right because one day it might just be you that isn't right.

Let's all try and be the good sheriff.