Reflecting on and writing about prejudice in recent days I am bound to reflect not only on my own prejudices but also on the widespread use of words which imply bias or interpretation and yet go unquestioned. In the most simple way I can, I thought I’d list a few here:

• “How rude!” To what extent is there something called “rudeness” and is this term ever used without prejudice? If I describe your behaviour as rude am I not claiming to know something about what is or isn’t rude and in some way to have authority over your behaviour?
• Terrorist: who gets to decide that an individual is a terrorist (rather than a freedom fighter) or that an act is an act of terrorism? On what basis is one act an act of terrorism and another (whether deemed legal or illegal) a war?
• Mental illness: Thomas Szasz wrote a book questionning the use of the term “mental illness” or “mentally ill”. Is there any such thing? Jung Chang’s memoir Wild Swans with her description of her father’s response to the experiences he had under Chairman Mao’s regime illustrates just how behaviours that pass as “mental illness” could equally be seen as a sane response to the set of circumstances in which we find ourselves. So, is it prejudicial to describe someone as mentally ill?
• Thug: How often do our journalists use terms such as “hooligan”, “thug” and “vandal” as if to use such a term were to state a fact rather than to make an interpretation? And to what extent does the use of a wide range of labels – from “parent” to “paedophile”, from “late” to “leisurely”, from “hard-working” to “high-potential” – imply prejudice on the part of the speaker?

I wonder how you respond to these terms? And what other words and phrases would you identify as showing prejudice.