Pancho or gypsy: prejudice as a mental shortcut

The question 'latin or gypsy' and the banalisation of prejudice

If the question of who is 'worse' comes up in a bar conversation, the most reasonable answer would be: it depends on the person. The comparison between people of Latin American origin and the Romani community, circulating online these days, condenses into a few lines an old sociological phenomenon: ethnic generalisation as a mental shortcut. Two entire groups are compared on the basis of personal anecdotes, hyperbole and the occasional bad joke.

Some claim their experience with a 'latin' worker was flawless, with a loft renovation finished to perfection, while at the same time holding on to the stereotype for the group as a whole. Others go further: they describe problems of coexistence or work performance and elevate them to a category. The contradiction is no accident: prejudice coexists with positive experiences without blinking.

Hyperbole also rears its head: comparing this dilemma to 'cancer or AIDS' or 'a bullet or a disease' adds zero arguments and plenty of rhetoric. It reduces a complex social problem to a quip, and the quip ends up normalising the question.

Throughout the entire exchange, not a single objective fact, statistic or study appeared. Anecdotes, yes. As long as the question of who is 'worse' keeps being asked without sharpening the tool, the answer will remain the same: those who need to believe there is a 'worse' are the ones who know least about what they are talking about. What would they say if the same yardstick were applied to them?