Does anyone understand the concept of once bitten, twice shy
We are built in to give our prejudices more weight when rooted in experience (even second-hand, even anecdotal, even with flimsy basis) than we are giving to reason and third-party evidence.
The French expression translates as: "a cat who got scalded will shy
away from cold water." (He will still drink water, but he will not willingly jump in a pond of unknown temperature, and will readily jump out of the way of splashing water)
You cannot efficiently work to reduce prejudice by telling people they are idiots, or bad people, without taking the time to understand how they relate to their fears, worries, experiences.
They might need a bit of positive reinforcement
Someone said :
If you think traveller petty crime is the problem when white collar major crime is being ignored then you are a sheep and you may as well sit in front of your tv and wait for commands on how and what you should think.
You seem to assume that I agree with the general population's perception.
Could it be that it may be because you find it hard to see the point of view of people you do not agree with?
There is a distance between "I can understand why the general public think that they are more impacted by petty crime and local violence than by remote corporate trickery" and "I believe that petty crime is the problem and that white color is not important".
You say you haven't been affected by bankers actions ?
I did not say anything remotely close to that unless you removed a lot of words and replaced others at your leisure.
I said that people are not experiencing the way they are affected by banker's crimes with the same closeness, urgency, and "visibility" as the way they are affected by petty crimes, from minorities or from majorities for that matter.
Someone said :
Can I ask the population not to judge an individual based on what their perception of their peers is? Or should we go old school and chuck them on the back of the bus.
You can "ask" them what you want, but if your only argument is that they are imagining things and that they are wrong and that you know best, you might find it hard to be heard.
Or are you judging them based on your perception of that the general population's prejudices are?