An Opposing View to Hate Speech in Jonathan Rauchs Article In Defense of Prejudice Essay Example

expression comes with racism expression. Some people as well believe that homosexuality is sickness and that homosexuals are a threat to children. This phenomenon is not comprehensive and hence will always be feared.

Hostility towards Jews also called anti-Semitism has proven to be harder than influenza virus. Attainment of diversity of views, in addition known as pluralism, brings with it racism, sexism, and communism. We should not only eradicate all forms of prejudgments but finding out ways of making the best of it. Prejudice eradication is meaningless. A student at the University of Michigan in a classroom discussion said that he had come to consider homosexuality a disease whose cure he believes to be therapy. He latter faced a hearing for violating the victimization of people based on sexual choice policy of the school. Many of Americans who do not see themselves as haters consider homosexuality a disease. The difference between a prejudiced belief and a controversial belief is very thin. God does not like homosexuality, for example, is a factual statement but "American criminals are all black" is a biased statement. It is hard to differentiate a prejudiced statement from a factual one indeed. The idea of pluralism is not doing away with prejudice sill making it productive socially by prejudice against prejudice and truth against truth and exposing both to public criticism. At the end, all that is left is true base of knowledge. According to the popular view, science is a reason against prejudice and open mindedness, yet the ugly truth of the situation is that scientist is biased. By David L. Hull, the aforementioned circumstance is the strength of science;

hence the scholars have different biases. Another ugly truth is that scientists are persons who invest in and defend their ideas with a passion.

Some people who do not believe in the praised idea of science think that in a non-judgmental system individuals should similarly be not-judgmental. A knowledgeable regime does with prejudice and avoids any attempt to do away with it. In accordance with Charles Sanders, an American philosopher, when an agreement is hard to be reached, the effective approach is massacring all those who thought otherwise about the idea. Most societies' priests, mass opinion, dictators etc. are identified errors and the makers of those were done away for silencing all others who were against. For so long this method has been used to hold doctrines in place.

In "intellectual pluralism," we kill people who make mistakes instead of each other or, like Karl Popper pointed out, science is letting the hypothesis we make die instead of ourselves. Pluralism not only makes a place for minorities in our society but also protects them. Actively challenging a policy should not be take the seriously of which the crusade against prejudice puts away such warnings. The prejudices in society cannot be just eliminated, and if some would be outspoken by you, you might be found a discriminator. Prejudiced words should be done away only with prejudice at all. UCLA Professor Mari Matsuda shares same views. Due to critics, newspapers have put forward lists of banned words not to be used in their pages.

Purists discovered doing away with judgmental words does not help because to replace those persons will go on find other

ones. According to a Stanford Professor, a community with one racist is not that safe since people will feel uncomfortable as long as the racist is present. Many universities have put in place codes against discriminative speech of which some punish targeted individuals. The fight against racism goes beyond eliminating racial words at school. In criminal law, a crime accompanied by bias elevates the crime. In a workplace, courts have put a restriction against discriminative language. Purists try to eliminate prejudice to protect minorities. The whole objective of eliminating and criticizing prejudice is hard, in fact.