In Defence of prejudce

Rauch makes his point against the latest trend in American society, the war against public expression of any prejudice. The article is arguing two different sides of public expression of individual prejudices using the two terms introduced by the author: "purism" used to describe the position of those who would eliminate prejudice, and "intellectual pluralism" describes a position, which recognizes the certain duality of life.

The author presents the both sides of his argument. On one side, there are the purists- authorities, the protesters, and the editorialists who believe that there is no place for any public expression of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious orientation, and “ that the public expressio

He makes the statement that everyone has experienced some kind of prejudice in their life and emphasizes that we are all guilty of prejudice because it is a natural aspect of human nature. Rauch goes on to say that almost everything labeled, as prejudice is something else overall, sometimes a plain difference of opinion or even a wrong point of view. We cannot say where is the line between hate speech and hypothesis. He states that, "the line between a prejudiced belief and a merely controversial one is elusive, and the harder you look the more elusive it becomes."

On the other side of the problem is the author himself (the pluralist) giving arguments about how to get the best out of prejudices instead of fighting to eradicate them regardless of today’s society that tries to eliminate any form of prejudice. Rauch makes a great point by bringing up the fact that we live in a society that gives us the right of freedom of speech and people will always use the freedom they are given to express themselves. With this right comes the racism and prejudice against homosexuals and other minorities. A pluralist would want words to be a substitute for violence. With this pointed out, Rauch explains that “the vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as [a] dictionary, and all [one does] by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say “. The writer suggests that the best way to deal with the prejudices is to ignore and marginalize people that express those biases, but let them exist.

Some topics in this essay:
Jonathan Rauch, public expression, intellectual pluralism, DEFENCE PREJUDICE”, hate speech, eliminate form prejudice, , eliminate form, form prejudice rauch, minority actually, today’s society, freedom speech, rauch argues, rauch makes, free speech,