Ontology:Q3688
- pronounced [S2] Prejudice is a form of freedom
Core characteristics[edit]
- item type
- S2 (pronounced C) 1-1-1
- pronounced [P] label [string] (L)
- pronounced [S2] Prejudice is a form of freedom
- pronounced [P] alias (mis) [string]
- Prejudice is considered a form of freedom (within the context of a group of Tories who believe normal people can be Tories and Tories are normal)
- pronounced [P] alias (mis) [string]
- Freedom is the force of any behavior that takes control like a moving freight train (metaphor)
- QID references [Item] 1-1-1
- field, scope, or group [Item]
- case of [Item]
- --
Wavebuilder combinations[edit]
- pronounced [P] pronounced Wavebuilder: forms result [Item]
- --
- along with [Item]
- --
Wavebuilder characterizations[edit]
- pronounced Wavebuilder: route [Item]
- pronounced [S2] Prejudice is a form of freedom
- along with [Item]
- pronounced [F2] Solidarity is strictly optional 1-1-1
- forming from [Item]
- pronounced [F2] Solidarity is strictly optional 1-1-1
- pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] the freedom to not encounter Black people
- pronounced [S2] Prejudice is a form of freedom
- pronounced Wavebuilder: route [Item]
- pronounced [S2] Prejudice is a form of freedom
- along with [Item]
- pronounced [F2] Solidarity is strictly optional 1-1-1
- forming from [Item]
- pronounced [F2] Solidarity is strictly optional 1-1-1
- pronounced [F2] Lesbian writers would never want to write about lesbians
- pronounced [S2] Prejudice is a form of freedom
Usage notes[edit]
This is the claim within the context of Tory-type ideologies that prejudice is a kind of fundamental freedom or inalienable right because whenever somebody exerts prejudice it must operate through mechanisms otherwise recognized as processes of freedom. The claim comes out of the causes of choosing prejudice or choosing to stay prejudiced, but it can quickly end up improperly flipped into saying that because freedom creates prejudice, prejudice must create freedom.
As ugly a claim as this is, it is not trivial to disprove given that being connected to the concept of subjectivity itself, aspects of it become inherently subjective. A schizoanalyst may think it is not possible this claim could be true because Freedom is anarchy and anarchy isn't prejudice, but a Tory will not show up with the same definition of what Freedom is, leaving the schizoanalyst to argue with the Tory's assignment of definitions to signifiers and the personal Lived Experience of "When Bob commits prejudice, Bob experiences freedom". Schizoanalyst Felix will not have an easy time arguing that Tory Bob objectively needs to define concepts a different way or is objectively having the wrong personal experience, so the only real solid move for Felix is to try to prove that Bob's assignment of prejudice into the category of Freedom conflicts with Bob's definitions of things in other circumstances, such as Bob's usual definition of Freedom. It is important to remember that no matter what Felix knows or experiences, Bob lives and exists within Bob's cultural context, not within Felix's cultural context. Depending on what money and skills he has, Bob has the power to tear out of a population at any time; the Vegeta effect around Bob is ultimately more powerful than any claim from Felix that the two belong to the same group, society, government, or countable culture.
To be able to hold Bob the Tory to any sort of real standards requires a strong grasp of the relationship between the separation of populations into different countable objects and populational states or governments. A population that does not identify itself culturally or physically as part of another population generally does not want to be under its government — if you begin to doubt this, ask yourself if China would be justified to impose laws on Uyghur people purely because they are breaking some rule the main Chinese population thinks everyone in their right mind should be following. If you live in Beijing, it's likely you will consider this a simple matter of people following the law or not and think the answer is yes. If you live in Austin, and you belong to any ideology but Marxism, you're more likely to think the answer is no. There are no easy answers to what the relationship between populational gaps and populational governments means for movements like the United States Tea Party. At the present time, all we can do is study historical materialism in general, investigate the new field of existential materialism, and ask ourselves many questions about the concept of national questions.
Falsification criteria[edit]
This proposition is considered false if there is a situation where Tories eagerly commit some form of prejudice and it later clearly leads to the blatant violation of something that Tories consider to be freedom.