I would not argue too strongly in favour of prejudice because most of the time I consider it a rationalisation of a strong affect after the fact, usually some kind of ego defence mechanism, I know that rationalisation is an ego defence but I mean that rather than its commonplace, almost accidential, deployment it is instead a patterned or characteristic style of thinking, explanatory style, arising from personal resistance to insights about the self.
On the other hand I would maintain that there are legitimate prejudice or that it can be utilitarian, kind of like doing the correct/right thing for the wrong/incorrect reasons.
Though like I say half truths, inadequate and incomplete information.
The most obvious, stereotypical and cliched prejudices are usually the easiest disproven or challenged really, its the ones which have gone unchecked for so long that do the damage, or the ones which pass long enough for truisms to be accepted as such, there is for instance as much liberal prejudice as there is racism, sexism, homophobia etc.
I admit that I have certain stereotypes about different categories of people, it actually helps me to communicate more effectively because I put those pre set ideas into consideration to be cautious or avoid misunderstandings, but not necessarily expect them to meet those stereotypes, I'm more interested in knowing more about the person himself than keep relating to that image that I have about the group of people he belongs to, and I don't consider that to be racist or sexist etc. and who knows? Maybe if I get to know more and more people of his group I might change those stereotypes as I might discover new pieces of information, so in my opinion stereotypes are not wrong, but having a prejudice attitude is coming from ignorance..
Work for a cause not for Applause
Live to express not to Impress
"Generally speaking, nationalist ideology suffers from pervasive false consciousness. Its myths invert reality: it claims to defend folk culture while in fact it is forging a high culture; it claims to protect an old folk society while in fact helping to build up an anonymous society . . . Nationalism tends to treat itself as a manifest and self-evident principle, accessible as such to all men, and violated only through some perverse blindness, when in fact it owes its plausibility and compelling nature only to a very special set of circumstances, which do indeed obtain now, but which were alien to most of humanity in history. It preaches and defends continuity, but owes everything to a decisive and unutterably profound break in human history. It preaches and defends cultural diversity, when it fact it imposes homogeneity both inside and, to a lesser degree, between political units. Its self-image and its true nature are inversely related, with an ironic neatness seldom equalled even by other successful ideologies."
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and why not?"
...attributed to Robert F. Kennedy, who attributes it to George Bernard Shaw.
Ha! I knew a good author who took up almost a chapter of a book on their feelings about how the question of "why?" was being ignored in favour of "why not?" and that they thought this was terrible as why is totally existential, serious minded etc. and to them why not just lends itself to consumerism, the pursuit of novelty etc.
"There are three kinds of intelligence: One kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither through itself nor others. This first kind is excellent, the second good, the third kind useless." - Machiavelli