But all generalizations are not prejudice.
Of course, but take the person within context of their other statements if you will, and then gauge where they are on the short spectrum between generalization and prejudice.
Without qualifiers, I think it's more likely to be taken as meaning "most" rather than "all"
Someone who makes sweeping judgement can at some point expect to have those generalizations questioned, especially when they rarely ever bother to put such qualifiers in their language.
Do petty prejudices like "Jews are smart" "Black dudes got big dicks" and "Asians are good at math" really mean shit if we treat people from all groups with respect as social equals?
Maybe you do, but not everyone who makes sweeping judgments like that actually does. People's language only reflects their thoughts and if you are capable of having such nuances wherein you can say Asians are good at math, and then not really apply it to all Asians and not resent Asians or try to take away any social capital from them, does not mean others who say that are the same as you.
I mean it's not like everyone who thinks Jews are superior in intellect also thinks they control the world-- the negative flipside isn't always there for everyone holding the positive prejudice.
Yep, I get your point. But I will still insist that positive and negative prejudices are not that separate once you look beneath the surface (in instances where the person actually believes them, not just a joke or a tongue-in-cheek remark they made).