It's a bit dated, but would "don't hug lepers" meet your standards for a good example?
no.
so - I realize it's partially on me, but since no one here has actually provided the definition for the word in question, here we go:
Prejudice (noun):
1. a) an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics;
b) [1] an adverse opinion or leaning formed without grounds or before sufficient knowledge;
b) [2] preconceived judgment or opinion;
c) an instance of such opinion or judgment
and that's per Merriam Webster.
"Don't hug lepers" is entirely separate from any of that, because it requires knowledge and understanding of leprosy in order to know why the active behavior of avoiding physical contact is important for one's safety and well-being.
It would be
prejudiced, if you saw someone who was disfigured in some way, and then made the decision to avoid them, or outright ostracize them, without knowing whether they had an infectious disease in the first place.
The person who started all this with their comment trying to refute Yuminella's assertion, has gotten the actual definition of "prejudice" incorrect, and built a faulty argument off of that initial error and then perpetuated it ever since.
They have argued this entire time for
caution and discretion in the face of an unknown, which is absolutely something worth doing, insofar as information and direct experience is lacking in order to make sound judgments or draw reasonable conclusions about said unknown entity.
But "prejudice" carries a very specific meaning and connotation, and it's represented as negative everywhere you see it used for that reason--it's wholly negative and exclusionary, and it requires
a distinct lack of understanding or insight into why negative and exclusionary behaviors are utilized.
Everyone, myself included, has gotten lost in the weeds by allowing the actual word's meaning to go unset, but etymologically speaking, that first person and everyone arguing in favor of their position is incorrect.
If they want to say "it's smart to be careful of shit you don't understand, or that
you know means harm or danger to you", then that's all fine and dandy.
But that's not discrimination, and it's not what Yuminella was talking about in this chapter, and to try and represent it as such is erroneous and arguably dangerous on its own, as it perverts language and vocabulary and obfuscates clarity, and thus limits understanding between people.
Which, somewhat ironically, is a tactic used by those that push discrimination and prejudice toward others.
