For me personally, I consider prejudiced action to be 'bad' when it fails to update based on countering evidence, and 'fine' if it does update.
SOME EXAMPLES:
3
3
56
Conversation
Your stereotype of redheads being untrustworthy comes from an anti-redhead movement from 50 years ago. You personally don't know any redheads to support this stereotype, and there's no statistical evidence to support the stereotype.
If you still believe it after this: BAD.
1
2
28
You, a small woman, are afraid of men, because men are the ones who follow you home and make you feel unsafe, not women.
You meet Joe, who behaves consistently respectfully. If you are still afraid of Joe after evidence to the contrary: BAD.
3
1
31
Things that are not bad: General prejudices based on evidence. Men are more likely to commit assault upon others, this is statistically supported. It's ok to be afraid of a man until you are provided evidence to the contrary, like Joe.
3
3
29
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
that's a drastic oversimplification. Yes, stats can often be misleading - particularly when news outlets report on them.
Do you think of men committing higher rates of physical assault on strangers as just "prejudice is okay"?