OK. I can see how I did that. I certainly placed your post withing my expectations of how people tend to use their analyses of cause as part of their moral positions. And I don't really know how you do this. So my apologies.
Taking it as purely a practical, let's analyze causes position, I still have problems with it.
I think the problem of prejudice is basically this:
I think part of my reaction to your post came from my reaction to the word 'the'. "The" problem of prejudice is basically this
Whenever someone holds a stance and doesn't budge, someone else is likely to take offense at that and consider the person "prejudiced" - whatever the topic might be.
It's the not budging that seems so "prejudiced".
I do not think this is basic or 'the' problem in many issues between groups and is very misleading as an analysis of situations where one group thinks the mere existence of the other group is a stance they refuse to budge. For me a basic problem arises when one group of humans thinks that another group of humans should not exist. The problem you are positing as fundamental certainly contributes to a lot of conflicts. In the conflict where one group thinks another group should not exist - and is either willing as a whole to see to it this happens or 'understands' when certain members of its own group takes steps in that direction - it is very hard for one group to budge in a way that the other group will find satisfying. I think it misses the point for example for Jews to see a way out in Nazi Germany through working on "How can we seem to budge?" (though of course a lot of oppressed groups do try this and/or are forced to)
I think at this point your analysis leads to problems. The group that is seen as provocative for existing cannot simply attack the problem by seeming to budge. In fact history has many examples of groups budging in the face of prejudice, sometimes very close to non-existence and certainly to degrees palpable by the prejudiced group, before standing up for itself, lashing back and becoming stubborn.
So even as a purely non-moral analysis, I think your position is problematic.
Another way to put this is it implies that the stances are equivalent or seems to overlook the fact that in many cases they are not. I think is at least some of these cases the people I would call the oppressors would acknowledge that if the other group budged they would seek out more budging, even if that oppressed group unilaterally budged first. I think many anti-homosexuals in the US would be able to articulate this, but shift the issue to say Iran and I think it is very clear. Homosexuals there cannot budge no matter how clearly and expect things to loosen up. Nor could Jews budge in Nazi Germany and expect things to loosen up. I realize you used the word 'seem'. And I think you are right that to Nazis they might not have seemed to have budged, even while accepting all sorts of restrictions, violence, slander, libel and dehumanizing treatment. But I am quite sure even some of the Nazis noticed that the Jews had indeed budged. Both these Nazis and the ones unable to see the any of this budging have a problem that is so fundamental the word seem here has no meaning. A fundamental problem is their inability to see anything as budging in certain kinds of people, if I try to stretch your model to include what I see as more fundamental.
I do think your model works for some conflicts. And I do think what you are pointing out is a factor in most, perhaps all conflicts.
Also framing gays for example as pro-homosexual seems slanted. Perhaps this is again more clear in the Nazi Germany situation. I think framing the debate as pro-Jew versus anti-Jew doesn't work even in terms of how it seems to the Nazis. The Nazis would be displeased with Jews even if they were somehow neutral about themselves. They certainly didn't cut developmentally disabled and mentally ill people much slack and certainly some of these would have been down on themselves.
You seem to think that I would discuss these things outside of such a forum or college discussion class.
Whew.
You really don't know me.
No, I don't. I am not sure what makes it clear that this forum is so different from 'outside such a forum'. It does not seem contained to me. And perhaps I can use this as a partial explanation for my reaction earlier to your post. To me it is all outside. But let's say it is contained, it is inside. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd what you are essentially saying here. (I think). "Here I would put forward these ideas that I think are observations of the truth, some of them obvious, but I would not put them forth outside certain very specific forums like this one." I will read no moral position into the 'Whew , you really don't know me." I'll take this as an emotional expression of how strongly you would not make a practical error. (in other words I am not taking this as 'it would be immoral to say elsewhere).
If what you are saying is true, fundamental, partially obvious (since this gives a bit of a hook for people who do not (perhaps, yet) agree with you, why not put it forth 'outside'?
Middle ground can certainly often be found - but it is unstable. Sooner or later circumstances change, the middle ground is lost, conflict emerges and eventually escalates.
”
This sounds rather hopeless. Like it doesn't really matter. Why then join the debate?
”
Excuse me, I have only stated the obvious.
You seem to heavily confuse statements of morality and statements of fact.
Not here. I was responding to what seemed to be a statement of the impossibility of something. It sounded hopeless. And I wondered why you bothered to put out the analysis. I think someone could think that coming up with such an analysis might help. In your case this did not seem to be true. I can understand posting things that one thinks are bad and cannot change, but it did make me wonder why you did? And actually that reaction was because it seemed on some level like you were trying to find a solution. That was perhaps a projection on my part, but I was surprised to find you ending on such a note.
