NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been reading the Israeli thread, and to me it sounds like most forumners accuse all Israelis as warmongers and Palestinians are accused to be whole level above that. I bet both sides have a good number of peace seeking people.

SO my question to you is, When do stereotypes become true?

When a majority of a certain group or race have characteristics that support a stereotype?

Or are they never truly true because theres always that exception?

When do stereotypes become true?
During international sporting events.

Or when on holiday. The amount of free beer, extra servings and chats with the opposite sex I've garnered through playing up my Scottishness while abroad is shameful.

I've been reading the Israeli thread, and to me it sounds like most forumners accuse all Israelis as warmongers and Palestinians are accused to be whole level above that. I bet both sides have a good number of peace seeking people.

SO my question to you is, When do stereotypes become true?

When a majority of a certain group or race have characteristics that support a stereotype?

Or are they never truly true because theres always that exception?

Stereotypes are good for jokes; they serve no other purpose for me.

I've been reading the Israeli thread, and to me it sounds like most forumners accuse all Israelis as warmongers and Palestinians are accused to be whole level above that. I bet both sides have a good number of peace seeking people.

SO my question to you is, When do stereotypes become true?

When a majority of a certain group or race have characteristics that support a stereotype?

Or are they never truly true because theres always that exception?

A stereotype becomes true when the target of that stereotype starts believing it.

The NBA.

Stereotypes becomes true when one wants a simplified version of the stereotyped. Unfortunately, this occurs far too frequently.

Fairly often.

I've been reading the Israeli thread, and to me it sounds like most forumners accuse all Israelis as warmongers and Palestinians are accused to be whole level above that. I bet both sides have a good number of peace seeking people.

SO my question to you is, When do stereotypes become true?

When a majority of a certain group or race have characteristics that support a stereotype?

Or are they never truly true because theres always that exception?

When a majority have the trait.

During international sporting events.

This.

I'm sure the Italians are lovely people when they're not flopping around and jumping off of stretchers.

The NBA.

You mean the stereotype of NBA players being highly skilled athletes with incredible stamina and hand-eye coordination? I bet I could come up with a list that defies that.

When a majority have the trait.

So, you, as an American voter, voted for Obama?

They don't. If something is true, it's not a stereotype. If something is a stereotype it's usually greatly exaggerated or flat out untrue by definition.

and I shall now direct your attention to rappers...

All stereotypes are true

I am inclined to say that stereotypes never really come true because there is, as you put it, always an exception.

A stereotype is by definition untrue. If a majority of the people in an ethnic or political group started acting in a way we would now consider stereotypical, it would cease to be a stereotype; it would become fact, and a new and more exaggerated stereotype would develop.

I am inclined to say that stereotypes never really come true because there is, as you put it, always an exception.

It doesn't matter if there are exceptions, or if majroty of a particular group even fall outside the definition, because a stereotype is only a percieved impression, or assigned value to a group

I read through the same thread...I thought the overall Consensus was that they were both piles of warmongering filth...

When theyre convenient.

When theyre convenient.

"Truth", not "truthiness".

Every stereotype has it's truth

SO my question to you is, When do stereotypes become true?

When a majority of a certain group or race have characteristics that support a stereotype?

Or are they never truly true because theres always that exception?

What do you mean by "true"? It's easy enough to construct accurate generalizations: "Many Canadians like hockey"; "Italians are often Catholic"; "Most Belgians have two legs". What value do any of these have in predicting an individual's behaviour/beliefs/appearance? None.

Never, but they become funny instantly.

What do you mean by "true"? It's easy enough to construct accurate generalizations: "Many Canadians like hockey"; "Italians are often Catholic"; "Most Belgians have two legs". What value do any of these have in predicting an individual's behaviour/beliefs/appearance? None.

Generalizations are not the stereotype category i meant. "All canooks love maple syrup" would be a what I was talking about.

Oh yeah i just said that.

So when does that stereotype become true(factual)? When 51% of Canada loves maple syrup? When 99% love maple syrup?

Generalizations are not the stereotype category i meant. "All canooks love maple syrup" would be a what I was talking about.

Oh yeah i just said that.

So when does that stereotype become true(factual)? When 51% of Canada loves maple syrup? When 99% love maple syrup?

Well "all" is an absolute statement, so that would only be true if 100% of Canadians liked maple syrup. Since there are roughly 32 million Canadians and no way to comprehensively gauge their food preferences, it's an unprovable (and therefore meaningless) statement.

"All canooks love maple syrup" would be a what I was talking about. Oh yeah i just said that.

Saying something about Canadians liking maple syrup is not as controversial or taboo as you seem to think it is. That statement didn't really have alot of shock and awe to it there, Mapplethorpe.

Stereotypes are lazy thinking. They're based on assumptions, and we all know what happens when you assume. Really the only value they have is comedic value, which in turn gives watchdog groups something to be pissy about.

It doesn't matter if there are exceptions, or if majroty of a particular group even fall outside the definition, because a stereotype is only a percieved impression, or assigned value to a group

I understand that, but stereotypes are never good. It makes us assign a position to a certain group and that's not always preferrable.

Stereotypes in my limited experience are true about as often as pigs fly.

Sterotypes are generalisations. I think sterotypes come about because of traits that have been witnessed over time, thus sterotypes at one time or other have been true.

I think you all have it the wrong way around. Better to ask when do sterotypes become untrue?

I've been reading the Israeli thread, and to me it sounds like most forumners accuse all Israelis as warmongers and Palestinians are accused to be whole level above that. I bet both sides have a good number of peace seeking people.
Very likely.


SO my question to you is, When do stereotypes become true?

When people are behaving in a stupid way.
Of course, since sterotypes are a (rough) statistical generalisation, there will NEVER exist the case "100% people from country/race X do Y" (unless Y="breathe").

Sterotypes are generalisations. I think sterotypes come about because of traits that have been witnessed over time, thus sterotypes at one time or other have been true.

I think you all have it the wrong way around.

Not really... I do think they are generalisations based on certain observations, but the moment they were generalised they became untrue.
"All Germans use bath towels to reserve seats at the pool" is just as silly as "All Brits get pissed out of their heads when given half a chance".
Sure, some do. And the behaviour is curious enough to the observer to note it. But to apply behaviour shown by some to all is just a fallacy.

Not really... I do think they are generalisations based on certain observations, but the moment they were generalised they became untrue.
"All Germans use bath towels to reserve seats at the pool" is just as silly as "All Brits get pissed out of their heads when given half a chance".
Sure, some do. And the behaviour is curious enough to the observer to note it. But to apply behaviour shown by some to all is just a fallacy.

Well of course it is not applicable to all, but enought o be a 'generalisation'

The sterotype that Brits get pissed at the drop of a hat, is a general truth. There are enough of us that behave in this way for this sterotype to work.

Well of course it is not applicable to all, but enought o be a 'generalisation'

The sterotype that Brits get pissed at the drop of a hat, is a general truth. There are enough of us that behave in this way for this sterotype to work.

I would still argue that given the population on total, it's only a small proportion that actually regularly engages in binge drinking.
Therefore, it's true to say that some Brits do, it might even be true to say that more Brits than Germans behave that way, but to say all Brits do it is just plain and simply untrue.

I understand that, but stereotypes are never good. It makes us assign a position to a certain group and that's not always preferrable.

Are never good?

So the sterotype that 'Germans are efficient' is bad?

Some words we use have negitive connertatuions and some good, I don't see how sterotypes differ from this?

I would still argue that given the population on total, it's only a small proportion that actually regularly engages in binge drinking.
Therefore, it's true to say that some Brits do, it might even be true to say that more Brits than Germans behave that way, but to say all Brits do it is just plain and simply untrue.

I agree, but I have never heard any sterotype that use the word 'all'.

Are never good?

So the sterotype that 'Germans are efficient' is bad?

Some words we use have negitive connertatuions and some good, I don't see how sterotypes differ from this?

Stereotypes, in general, are not good, be them good or bad.

Are never good?

So the sterotype that 'Germans are efficient' is bad?

Some words we use have negitive connertatuions and some good, I don't see how sterotypes differ from this?

That's still bad, in the sense that you might expect all Germans to be efficient, and when they are not you are not you react negatively because of unreasonable expectations based on a stereotype.

It's also frustrating for anyone to be treated based on any kind of generalization, good or bad, because it's it's inaccurate and not based in fact.

Are never good?

So the sterotype that 'Germans are efficient' is bad?

Some words we use have negitive connertatuions and some good, I don't see how sterotypes differ from this?

I'd say it's just as bad as "all Germans are Nazis".
True, some aspects in Germany tend to be more efficiently regulated than in many other countries. But that does not mean that all Germans are always efficient. To expect such a thing is setting yourself up for massive disappointment.

Thinking in stereotypes prevents you from actually seeing things as they are, as you will always approach them in a prejudiced way.

I agree, but I have never heard any sterotype that use the word 'all'.

So when you just posted "Germans are efficient", that didn't refer to all, just some?
What about "Londoners have to pay congestion charges if they want to drive a car in their town"? Does that only refer to some?

That's still bad, in the sense that you might expect all Germans to be efficient, and when they are not you are not you react negatively because of unreasonable expectations based on a stereotype.

It's also frustrating for anyone to be treated based on any kind of generalization, good or bad, because it's it's inaccurate and not based in fact.

So what you are saying here is that peoples reaction to sterotypes may be bad? Anybody of sense takes no notice of sterotypes, and instead treats them as they should be treated(as somebody has already pointed out) as jokes.


I don't think there is inherently any morality involed with sterotypes or generalisations, it is what the individual does with them that counts.

So what you are saying here is that peoples reaction to sterotypes may be bad? Anybody of sense takes no notice of sterotypes, and instead treats them as they should be treated(as somebody has already pointed out) as jokes.


I don't think there is inherently any morality involed with sterotypes or generalisations, it is what the individual does with them that counts.

So they've never been true, as you stated originally, but always were jokes and indeed intended as jokes, then?

So when you just posted "Germans are efficient", that didn't refer to all, just some?
What about "Londoners have to pay congestion charges if they want to drive a car in their town"? Does that only refer to some?

The former is clearly a sterotype that has been used more than once by many people, the later well that's just a statement isn't it.

Yes if I hear the sterotype 'Germans are efficient' I know that it is a steroetype, or a generlisation, so why would I belive that it is applicable to all Germans?

So they've never been true, as you stated originally, but always were jokes and indeed intended as jokes, then?

No as I have said, I belive you are thinking about this the wrong way around. First comes the percived actions, then comes the sterotype, after which the stereotype becomes outdated.

At the point of conception the sterotyp is 'generaly' true. It is latter that it looses this. So as I say I tink the better question is, when do sterotype become untrue?

So what you are saying here is that peoples reaction to sterotypes may be bad? Anybody of sense takes no notice of sterotypes, and instead treats them as they should be treated(as somebody has already pointed out) as jokes.


I don't think there is inherently any morality involed with sterotypes or generalisations, it is what the individual does with them that counts.

Well, yes.... But that is just as glib as saying "words aren't bad - only how people act on them". I think we're generally discussing the use of stereotypes as being bad, in this thread, if you want to split hairs.

The fact is, some people DO fill in the gaps in their knowledge with stereotypes. Whether that's because they don't have sense, or not, is another question.

Well, yes.... But that is just as glib as saying "words aren't bad - only how people act on them". I think we're generally discussing the use of stereotypes as being bad, in this thread, if you want to split hairs.

The fact is, some people DO fill in the gaps in their knowledge with stereotypes. Whether that's because they don't have sense, or not, is another question.

Perhaps it is glib, but the mere fact that you and a few others seem to belive the complete opposite of myself, is a good indication that my glibness has a ring of truth to it huh.

Come really, who takes any notice of sterotypes? Some do that is a fact, I shall call these people the 'stupid ones'.

Should we then endulge in censorship for the sake of the 'stupid ones'?

So for the record and to re-iterate my argument. There is no inherent morality in sterotypes, or simply put, sterotypes are neither good nor bad. I belive that is not spliting hairs, and conforms in context to the thrust of the thread?

Perhaps it is glib, but the mere fact that you and a few others seem to belive the complete opposite of myself, is a good indication that my glibness has a ring of truth to it huh.

Come really, who takes any notice of sterotypes? Some do that is a fact, I shall call these people the 'stupid ones'.

If people took no notice of stereotypes, why are they still around?

Should we then endulge in censorship for the sake of the 'stupid ones'?


No, censorship is impossible anyway. Education and exposure are what's needed.

And you're saying that we shouldn't bother to address the damage caused by stereotyping, because it's only done by stupid people?

So for the record and to re-iterate my argument. There is no inherent morality in sterotypes, or simply put, sterotypes are neither good nor bad. I belive that is not spliting hairs, and conforms in context to the thrust of the thread?

There's no inherent morality to being a racist? Being racist is neither good nor bad, it's only if you act on it, and only stupid people would act on racist beliefs? And racism isn't widespread, because it's only a few stupid people?

Are never good?

So the sterotype that 'Germans are efficient' is bad?

Some words we use have negitive connertatuions and some good, I don't see how sterotypes differ from this?

Using stereotypes to predict or characterize individuals is never good....or more accurately, never useful. To use your example, I've known some pretty wildly inefficient Germans. If I met one of them for the first time and assumed they were efficient just because they were German, I wouldn't be doing myself any favours.

Using stereotypes to predict or characterize individuals is never good....or more accurately, never useful. To use your example, I've known some pretty wildly inefficient Germans. If I met one of them for the first time and assumed they were efficient just because they were German, I wouldn't be doing myself any favours.

Again though what you are talking about here, is the individual's response upon hearing a sterotype.

If I tell you that old sterotype 'Germans are efficient' what would you do with that?

Would you assume that it is true?
Would you see it for what it is, a sterotype?
Do you in fact use 'stereotypes to predict or characterize individuals'?

If people took no notice of stereotypes, why are they still around?

Umm did you miss this:

'Some do that is a fact, I shall call these people the 'stupid ones'

Only stupid one's see sterotypes as reality, there is no acounting for what the stupid ones will or will not do.


No, censorship is impossible anyway. Education and exposure are what's needed.

Okay well I see jokes in the same light as I do sterotypes, would you like us to treat them the same way? Why? Why not?


And you're saying that we shouldn't bother to address the damage caused by stereotyping, because it's only done by stupid people?

What damage?


There's no inherent morality to being a racist? Being racist is neither good nor bad, it's only if you act on it, and only stupid people would act on racist beliefs? And racism isn't widespread, because it's only a few stupid people?

What rot is that? There is inherent morality in racism. Are you trying to say that racism and sterotypes are the same?

Again though what you are talking about here, is the individual's response upon hearing a sterotype.

If I tell you that old sterotype 'Germans are efficient' what would you do with that?

Would you assume that it is true?
Would you see it for what it is, a sterotype?
Do you in fact use 'stereotypes to predict or characterize individuals'?

I would assume you're stupid and uninformed.
I would further assume that you 1) are not German, and 2) have never in your life met one.
Then I would proceed to dismiss your opinion of Germans.

I would assume you're stupid and uninformed.
I would further assume that you 1) are not German, and 2) have never in your life met one.
Then I would proceed to dismiss your opinion of Germans.

All of which then points to the fact that you largly ignore sterotypes.

So as I say niether inherently good nor bad, it is what we do with them.

What damage?

Ok, let's take it from the begining : People aren't born with knowledge. People learn. People might - while not being stupid - end up only hearing the stereotypes, and end up believing them.
It would be intellectual waste, not to mention what this might end up doing to diplomatic relations.


What rot is that? There is inherent morality in racism. Are you trying to say that racism and sterotypes are the same?

And what is racism other than skin-based stereotypes?

All of which then points to the fact that you largly ignore sterotypes.

So as I say niether inherently good nor bad, it is what we do with them.

So you basically advocate isolating people who do use and believe in stereotypes and completely dismissing everything they say right out of hand, rather than trying to point out to them that what they believe in is in fact a stereotype and can lead to dangerous situtations as well as to seriously insulting people unintentionally?

So, you, as an American voter, voted for Obama?

No but the American voter did unfortunately.

And what is racism other than skin-based stereotypes?

Actually, CW, racism goes deeper, as it tries to rationalise and exploit xenophobia in the frame of a pseudoscience. Stereotypes are a useful tool for racism.

All stereotypes are true

so every scottish person has ginger hair, wears a kilt 24/7, and goes round saying "Och aye the noo"?

every italian man is a 6ft lothario whos drop dead georgeous?

all welsh people bum sheep?

coz thats effectively what you're saying with that comment

Ok, let's take it from the begining : People aren't born with knowledge. People learn. People might - while not being stupid - end up only hearing the stereotypes, and end up believing them.
It would be intellectual waste, not to mention what this might end up doing to diplomatic relations.

Then such people woud have had a very strange upbringing. Come on Cab, are you seriously asking me to belive that there is even the remotest possiblity that there are people around whos's only education has been the bombardment of sterotypes?

I'm not denying that some sterotypes may be damaging, but honestly once a person reaches a certian level of understanding they see sterotypes for what they are, just sterotypes. You have already told me that you take no note of them, are you proclaiming then that others have not got the capacity to understand what you do?


And what is racism other than skin-based stereotypes?

You can of course have racist sterotypes, but a sterotype is not = to racisim.

Heres one from my youth.

'Trendies are violent thugs'

Even when I was a young rocker this was true, for the way that trendies (read chav's) 'generaly' reacted to seeing me and my mates walking down the street. But note the word generaly, the fact was this sterotype came about, because 'generaly' a group of teenage metal heads walking down the road could be expected to get some trouble from the teenage trendies perhaps 7 times out of 10.

Sterotypes are about the general witnessed actions of one group, and mostly have a basis in truth when they are born.

Actually, CW, racism goes deeper, as it tries to rationalise and exploit xenophobia in the frame of a pseudoscience. Stereotypes are a useful tool for racism.

I tend to see it the other way around : racism is a stereotype first, and when pushed the racist will try to rationalise his belief in the stereotype, pull out statistics, draw parallels to the animal kingdom, the lot.

so every scottish person has ginger hair, wears a kilt 24/7, and goes round saying "Och aye the noo"?

every italian man is a 6ft lothario whos drop dead georgeous?

all welsh people bum sheep?

coz thats effectively what you're saying with that comment

All those things are true.

So you basically advocate isolating people who do use and believe in stereotypes and completely dismissing everything they say right out of hand, rather than trying to point out to them that what they believe in is in fact a stereotype and can lead to dangerous situtations as well as to seriously insulting people unintentionally?

Bloody hell! Heh how did you infer that then?

so every scottish person has ginger hair, wears a kilt 24/7, and goes round saying "Och aye the noo"?

every italian man is a 6ft lothario whos drop dead georgeous?

all welsh people bum sheep?

coz thats effectively what you're saying with that comment


Well number three IS true!;)

I tend to see it the other way around : racism is a stereotype first, and when pushed the racist will try to rationalise his belief in the stereotype, pull out statistics, draw parallels to the animal kingdom, the lot.

I disagree. I think that racism is a "clever" way of exploiting the natural human xenophobia.

Oh, well, anyway all racists are idiots and/or evil. And this is a stereotype I proudly hold as true.

every italian man is a 6ft lothario whos drop dead georgeous?


Hey! I'm not that short! I'm 6'3" tall! ;)

Hey! I'm not that short! I'm 6'3" tall! ;)

Are you drop dead gorgeous?:tongue:

All Spanish girls are hot... All Spanish guys are amazing lovers...

Nope. Not really.

Then such people woud have had a very strange upbringing. Come on Cab, are you seriously asking me to belive that there is even the remotest possiblity that there are people around whos's only education has been the bombardment of sterotypes?

I'm not denying that some sterotypes may be damaging, but honestly once a person reaches a certian level of understanding they see sterotypes for what they are, just sterotypes. You have already told me that you take no note of them, are you proclaiming then that others have not got the capacity to understand what you do?


The majority of people on this planet doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of exposure to other cultures and opinions as we do here. It's nice to believe the general public to be educated enough to spot a stereotype for a falsehood when they see one, but I ask you : Would the Sun and the Mail be selling as well as they do if that was the case?


You can of course have racist sterotypes, but a sterotype is not = to racisim.

Heres one from my youth.

'Trendies are violent thugs'

Even when I was a young rocker this was true, for the way that trendies (read chav's) 'generaly' reacted to seeing me and my mates walking down the street. But note the word generaly, the fact was this sterotype came about, because 'generaly' a group of teenage metal heads walking down the road could be expected to get some trouble from the teenage trendies perhaps 7 times out of 10.

Sterotypes are about the general witnessed actions of one group, and mostly have a basis in truth when they are born.

Rascism is one aspects of stereotypes. How else would you explain its origins?

Yes, stereotypes report and observed behaviour. However, they do not reflect the prevalence of that behaviour in the group it's being alleged to.
To go back to the bath towel example : Yes, there are some Germans who do that. But they are a small, small minority. Many Germans would in fact be mortified lest their towel might get nicked while they're away.
There may be some violent chavs. But the simple fact that being a chav is a fashion statement should give you a clue as to how many will actually be violent. The vast majority will dress that way "because all the cool kids do it". The only thing that you can deduce from their clothing is a longing to be recognised in a group.

I disagree. I think that racism is a "clever" way of exploiting the natural human xenophobia.

Oh, well, anyway all racists are idiots and/or evil. And this is a stereotype I proudly hold as true.

Stereotypes play into the same psychological mechanism, though.
They are observances of a certain behaviour in a group that is not your own, reported on to members of your group.
A mechanism to distance your own group from another group.

What damage?
I'm not denying that some sterotypes may be damaging

Marvellous.

What rot is that? There is inherent morality in racism. Are you trying to say that racism and sterotypes are the same?

No, not identical, but certainly interwoven.

You can of course have racist sterotypes, but a sterotype is not = to racisim.

So is a racist stereotype therefore a different class of stereotype, which can be morally judged? Is it no longer just harmless or the realm of 'the stupid'?

The majority of people on this planet doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of exposure to other cultures and opinions as we do here. It's nice to believe the general public to be educated enough to spot a stereotype for a falsehood when they see one, but I ask you : Would the Sun and the Mail be selling as well as they do if that was the case?

Granted, but I belive you are on a false run of logic with you remark about the Sun and the Mirror.

I myself 'take' The Sun, and I belive I can explain why many people that do, do not buy into sterotypes.(Besides the fact that equating Sun readers with stupidity is itself a sterotype)

1) I come from a large, poor, working class background, The Sun has always been the paper of choice for people who share my demographic.

2) Page three!

3) Hagar the horrible.

4) It's a comic.



Rascism is one aspects of stereotypes. How else would you explain its origins?

I think it is the other way around. It stems from the menality of tribe. Those in that tribe over in the next valley eat babies. Is a negative sterotype designed to foster bad realtions. The rasicm comes, and the sterotype follows on as a tool to foster such rasicm.



Yes, stereotypes report and observed behaviour. However, they do not reflect the prevalence of that behaviour in the group it's being alleged to.
To go back to the bath towel example : Yes, there are some Germans who do that. But they are a small, small minority. Many Germans would in fact be mortified lest their towel might get nicked while they're away.
There may be some violent chavs. But the simple fact that being a chav is a fashion statement should give you a clue as to how many will actually be violent. The vast majority will dress that way "because all the cool kids do it". The only thing that you can deduce from their clothing is a longing to be recognised in a group.

Correct that is why sterotypes are generalisations.

Marvellous.

Heh I'm a Sikh and within Sikh circles whenever we quote from Guru Granth Sahib, in order to prove a point we are asked to quote the entire page for proper context.

So you said:

'And you're saying that we shouldn't bother to address the damage caused by stereotyping, because it's only done by stupid people? '

To which I replied:

'What damage?'


It is clear from the context that you did not mean some, sterotype, you used the word 'sterotyping' which to me denotes that you meant all sterotypes.

'What damage?' Could be taken as meaning, explain to me the specific damage, which was indeed how I meant it.

The later admision that I concour that some sterotype could be damaing, does not invalidate my question.


So is a racist stereotype therefore a different class of stereotype, which can be morally judged? Is it no longer just harmless or the realm of 'the stupid'?

Well remeber my claim is that sterotypes have no inherent morality, it is how people use them. So lets test it.

Pardon my use of the N word now.

'Niggers are muggers'

Do you belive what I have just told you?

Are you drop dead gorgeous?:tongue:

My fiancee says so, and I know better than to disagree with her. :D

Stereotypes play into the same psychological mechanism, though.
They are observances of a certain behaviour in a group that is not your own, reported on to members of your group.
A mechanism to distance your own group from another group.

Yay. A symptom of xenophobia. "Us" vs "them".

'Niggers are muggers'

That's not just a horrible stereotype... it's also a horrible allitteration! (quandoquidem etiam bonus Homerus sonitat, though)

Granted, but I belive you are on a false run of logic with you remark about the Sun and the Mirror.

I myself 'take' The Sun, and I belive I can explain why many people that do, do not buy into sterotypes.(Besides the fact that equating Sun readers with stupidity is itself a sterotype)

1) I come from a large, poor, working class background, The Sun has always been the paper of choice for people who share my demographic.

2) Page three!

3) Hagar the horrible.

4) It's a comic.



Kudos to you, then, but I have to say I've worked in enough factories in my life to know that there is a staggering amount of people out there who do believe what these papers print, no matter how inane or blatantly untrue it might sound (those people read the "Bild", wihch is the German equivalent of the Sun, only no comic).

And do you honestly by a whole paper just for one pair of boobs and 3 panels of cartoon? Seriously?


I think it is the other way around. It stems from the menality of tribe. Those in that tribe over in the next valley eat babies. Is a negative sterotype designed to foster bad realtions. The rasicm comes, and the sterotype follows on as a tool to foster such rasicm.


Chicken and egg, hm?
Racism couldn't exist without stereotyping. Yet you insist that stereotyping can happen without being immediately racist.
Ergo, stereotypes were first, and evolved into full-flung racism.

Heh I'm a Sikh and within Sikh circles whenever we quote from Guru Granth Sahib, in order to prove a point we are asked to quote the entire page for proper context.

So you said:

'And you're saying that we shouldn't bother to address the damage caused by stereotyping, because it's only done by stupid people? '

To which I replied:

'What damage?'


It is clear from the context that you did not mean some, sterotype, you used the word 'sterotyping' which to me denotes that you meant all sterotypes.

'What damage?' Could be taken as meaning, explain to me the specific damage, which was indeed how I meant it.

The later admision that I concour that some sterotype could be damaing, does not invalidate my question.

OK, I get your point. I was coming from the angle that (I believed) you said no stereotypes caused any damage (otherwise you could make a moral judgement about them), so I only needed to show an instance to prove that wrong.

So is your argument then, that not ALL stereotypes are damaging, but some are? In which case yes, I agree - not all stereotypes are necessarily damaging. But ones that cause people to act in an ill-informed way are - and those tend to be the 'common' stereotypes perpetuated.


Well remeber my claim is that sterotypes have no inherent morality, it is how people use them. So lets test it.

Pardon my use of the N word now.

'Niggers are muggers'

Do you belive what I have just told you?

It's not phrased in a way that makes sense as a statement. It needs qualification like "all" or "some" or "the ones I know"

Yay. A symptom of xenophobia. "Us" vs "them".

More than that. You cannot be racist without stereotyping people.

And do you honestly by a whole paper just for one pair of boobs and 3 panels of cartoon? Seriously

Heh yes I do. I love my Hagar.



Chicken and egg, hm?
Racism couldn't exist without stereotyping. Yet you insist that stereotyping can happen without being immediately racist.
Ergo, stereotypes were first, and evolved into full-flung racism.

Heh what twisted logic. To clarify sterotype can be used as a racist tool, not all sterotypes are racist.

The OP is simply restating a very old and fundamental question posed by thoughtful racists, sexists, homophobes, and bigots everywhere:

How many personal anecdotes do I need to compile before it becomes OK for me to make racist/sexist/homophobic statements about a given group?

For example:

If I can come up with three personal anecdotes about black guys stealing things, is that enough to justify me calling black people thieving n---ers? Or do I need a fourth anecdote?

If I've had two girlfriends break up with me because I didn't take them on nice enough dates, is that a large enough sample size for me to claim that all women are gold-digging whores, or do I need to go on a few more dates?

I've been hit on by gay men five times. I think that's enough to justify me saying that all gay men are sexual predators. What do you guys think?

Etc. and so forth. Interested bigots want to know!

More than that. You cannot be racist without stereotyping people.

Granted.
Though stereotypes about people can exist even without a pseudo-rational racist frame. And stereotyping people isn't sufficient to define racism.

Heh what twisted logic. To clarify sterotype can be used as a racist tool, not all sterotypes are racist.

Never said they were. I said they are the first step to racism. They enable racism.

Granted.
Though stereotypes about people can exist even without a pseudo-rational racist frame. And stereotyping people isn't sufficient to define racism.

No, they don't constitute racism all by themselves. But I would say they form the foundation.

My fiancee says so, and I know better than to disagree with her. :D

:tongue:

Again though what you are talking about here, is the individual's response upon hearing a sterotype.

If I tell you that old sterotype 'Germans are efficient' what would you do with that?

Would you assume that it is true?
Would you see it for what it is, a sterotype?
Do you in fact use 'stereotypes to predict or characterize individuals'?

What I'm talking about is the point of communicating a demonstrably false, or at best completely unprovable, idea. What's the use of you telling me "Germans are efficient" if we agree that it doesn't hold up for all Germans? What is the value of a stereotype?

Never said they were. I said they are the first step to racism. They enable racism.

Sorry mate, we are destined to disagree on this one.

Racism comes from hatred often breed from not understanding the differance, and as I said before ultimatly it stems from the old tribal feelings.

You don't need to create a sterotype of a group in order to hate them. The hatred comes first and the bad words and lies and methoeds of spreading such come latter.

Lets examine mysognistic sterotypes.

Do you hear a sterotype and them become a woman hater, or is it more likely that you hate women first and so put greater stock in such sterotypes?

Sorry mate, we are destined to disagree on this one.

Racism comes from hatred often breed from not understanding the differance, and as I said before ultimatly it stems from the old tribal feelings.

You don't need to create a sterotype of a group in order to hate them. The hatred comes first and the bad words and lies and methoeds of spreading such come latter.

Lets examine mysognistic sterotypes.

Do you hear a sterotype and them become a woman hater, or is it more likely that you hate women first and so put greater stock in such sterotypes?

How do you hate a group without identifying them as a group first?
That's what a stereotype is. Something that's in common (in your mind) to all individuals of a certain group, and that you don't agree with.

As for the misogynist : When do you first get to hear stereotypes about others? Be it women, men, blacks, ManU supporters, or taxi drivers? When you're a kid.
If you feed a kid enough stereotypes, it's highly likely he/she will end up believing them. Or do you think it's a coincidence that misogyny is more prevalent in some cultures than in others?

What I'm talking about is the point of communicating a demonstrably false, or at best completely unprovable, idea. What's the use of you telling me "Germans are efficient" if we agree that it doesn't hold up for all Germans? What is the value of a stereotype?

I have said elswhere that I personaly regard sterotypes in the same light as jokes. What's the value in jokes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masburel
so every scottish person has ginger hair, wears a kilt 24/7, and goes round saying "Och aye the noo"?

every italian man is a 6ft lothario whos drop dead georgeous?

all welsh people bum sheep?

coz thats effectively what you're saying with that comment

All those things are true.

ive been to wales non of my friends there bum sheep

i have scottish relatives and not a single one of them has ever said och aye the noo and i havent seen them in a kilt either

How do you hate a group without identifying them as a group first?
That's what a stereotype is. Something that's in common (in your mind) to all individuals of a certain group, and that you don't agree with.

No that is wrong. Women is a word used to identify a group.

The phrase 'Women are gold-diggers' is a negative sterotype of the group we have identifyed as Women.

If I have had 30 wifes each one of which has run off with another man with my cash. That may well cause me to hate woman, and then start to use the stereotype above.

So so see the hatred comes first, next the negitive sterotype.

No that is wrong. Women is a word used to identify a group.

The phrase 'Women are gold-diggers' is a negative sterotype of the group we have identifyed as Women.

If I have had 30 wifes each one of which has run off with another man with my cash. That may well cause me to hate woman, and then start to use the stereotype above.

So so see the hatred comes first, next the negitive sterotype.

That would cause you to make up a stereotype (all women run off with my money with another man), rather than buy into one already in circulation.

If you've been told time and again during your childhood that women don't have as much brains as men, and need to be kept inside the house, you would believe it.
And once you've grown up, you would be highly likely to continue the stereotype by forcing your wife to stay in the house, and by telling your kids the same bullshit.

I have said elswhere that I personaly regard sterotypes in the same light as jokes. What's the value in jokes?

Jokes only work when you buy into the premise, though. An "efficient German" joke isn't funny if you don't accept the idea that Germans are efficient.

So again, if we agree that the underlying stereotype is false, what's the value in communicating it?

That would cause you to make up a stereotype (all women run off with my money with another man), rather than buy into one already in circulation.

If you've been told time and again during your childhood that women don't have as much brains as men, and need to be kept inside the house, you would believe it.
And once you've grown up, you would be highly likely to continue the stereotype by forcing your wife to stay in the house, and by telling your kids the same bullshit.

Well you know the gold-digger one is not new yes?

Also what you are talking about here is using sterotype to install hatred. That hatred is already present in the one using the sterotype, was already present in the one that used it on the one that is now using it.

Where did the original hatred come from?

Jokes only work when you buy into the premise, though. An "efficient German" joke isn't funny if you don't accept the idea that Germans are efficient.

So again, if we agree that the underlying stereotype is false, what's the value in communicating it?

I don't agree with that. Jokes certianly work if you don't buy into the initial premise.

I work with a German lady. We where having a chat the other day, she has moved house, and was telling me that all her stuff is coming over from Berlin.(we both live in London BTW)

I asked her ohh when, she laughed and said well the firm told me between 8:00Am and 12:00 noon. So she said, that means not a second after 12:00, you know how efficeint us Germans are.

The above is actulay true. we both laughed at it, now neither of us relly buy into the sterotype, why then did we laugh?

Perhaps because it was ironic laughter? No because for every joke there must be a 'butt' that is a given, and we all laugh at other people.

Does that mean she hates her fellow country men, or that I'm racist where Germas are concerned?

As for value, I have already said that there is no inherent morality invovled with sterotypes, only what we do with them matters. If you find no value then for you there is none, others will find some value I think.

Myself, I treat them as jokes, so the value for me is laughter.

A differant value is when I encounter on of the 'stupid ones' that actualy belive sterotypes are real, then the value in that is it helps me understand 'Ohhhh you're a moron', and lets me know that such a person is to be avioded.

Value is subjective innit.

When a majority of a certain group or race have characteristics that support a stereotype?

I would have to largely agree with that statement, however, with a slight modification. If it is also shown that the group is more likely to have those characteristics.

For instance; the stereotype is that blondes are dumb. For a television show a few years back, we had a hundred people do an IQ test - and, it turned out that the blondes had a lower IQ than people of any other hair colour.

I think some stereotypes, including some politically-incorrect ones, are somewhat reasonable, though obviously exaggerated. I recall from psychology back in first year, one of my professors mentioned IQ studies comparing different races, and something about how whites on average are slightly more intelligent than blacks or hispanics on average, and less intelligent than asians on average, and that it's just something people are a bit more afraid to talk about in the US because of the racial issues there. That in particular was more of a side-comment than a key part of the lecture but the same professor also made references to psychological gender differences (and their basis in evolutionary psychology) in several lectures, as a much more significant component of the course.

I consider this an example of where social norms can distort our perception of reality. Science looks into the stereotypes that society has this kind of taboo against. But hey, society's taboos haven't always been logical anyway...

For instance; the stereotype is that blondes are dumb. For a television show a few years back, we had a hundred people do an IQ test - and, it turned out that the blondes had a lower IQ than people of any other hair colour.
A spurious claim. I'd need to see evidence, and methods of research, and even then I'd still be very skeptical.

Then such people woud have had a very strange upbringing. Come on Cab, are you seriously asking me to belive that there is even the remotest possiblity that there are people around whos's only education has been the bombardment of sterotypes?

...are you seriously saying this is hard to believe? Because I'm kind of dumbfounded here.

I don't agree with that. Jokes certianly work if you don't buy into the initial premise.

I work with a German lady. We where having a chat the other day, she has moved house, and was telling me that all her stuff is coming over from Berlin.(we both live in London BTW)

I asked her ohh when, she laughed and said well the firm told me between 8:00Am and 12:00 noon. So she said, that means not a second after 12:00, you know how efficeint us Germans are.

The above is actulay true. we both laughed at it, now neither of us relly buy into the sterotype, why then did we laugh?



Would the joke have worked if she were, say, Congolese?

A spurious claim. I'd need to see evidence, and methods of research, and even then I'd still be very skeptical.

Come on. It was (allegedly) ON TV!! You must accept it without question.

I think some stereotypes, including some politically-incorrect ones, are somewhat reasonable, though obviously exaggerated. I recall from psychology back in first year, one of my professors mentioned IQ studies comparing different races, and something about how whites on average are slightly more intelligent than blacks or hispanics on average, and less intelligent than asians on average, and that it's just something people are a bit more afraid to talk about in the US because of the racial issues there. That in particular was more of a side-comment than a key part of the lecture but the same professor also made references to psychological gender differences (and their basis in evolutionary psychology) in several lectures, as a much more significant component of the course.

I consider this an example of where social norms can distort our perception of reality. Science looks into the stereotypes that society has this kind of taboo against. But hey, society's taboos haven't always been logical anyway...

Perhaps you should have more than a passing memory of some mention by some professor during your first year, before you conclude that whites are more intelligent than blacks.

Moreover, did your professor happen to explain how people tested were identified as "white" or "black" for these studies?

EDIT: I do find your argument that social norms in the U.S. prevent people from talking about race and intelligence when a book on that subject (The Bell Curve (http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299)) was a bestseller and led to numerous other books discussing the topic.

Perhaps you should have more than a passing memory of some mention by some professor during your first year, before you conclude that whites are more intelligent than blacks.

Moreover, did your professor happen to explain how people tested were identified as "white" or "black" for these studies?

EDIT: I do find your argument that social norms in the U.S. prevent people from talking about race and intelligence when a book on that subject (The Bell Curve (http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299)) was a bestseller and led to numerous other books discussing the topic.
I didn't mean it prevented them from discussing the topic; obviously race is a major issue in the US, but there's certain things ABOUT it that are too taboo to say. As for the specifics, maybe I'll ask him about them next time I walk by his office...

I think some stereotypes, including some politically-incorrect ones, are somewhat reasonable, though obviously exaggerated. I recall from psychology back in first year, one of my professors mentioned IQ studies comparing different races, and something about how whites on average are slightly more intelligent than blacks or hispanics on average, and less intelligent than asians on average, and that it's just something people are a bit more afraid to talk about in the US because of the racial issues there. That in particular was more of a side-comment than a key part of the lecture but the same professor also made references to psychological gender differences (and their basis in evolutionary psychology) in several lectures, as a much more significant component of the course.

I consider this an example of where social norms can distort our perception of reality. Science looks into the stereotypes that society has this kind of taboo against. But hey, society's taboos haven't always been logical anyway...

Either your professor failed to note, or you failed to attend to, the fact that most IQ tests in use today are culturally biased and developed in Western societies whose population tends to be mostly composed of white people.

Your professor also does not appear to be aware of the fact that there is more genetic variation between members of the same "race" than there is between "races".

I don't agree with that. Jokes certianly work if you don't buy into the initial premise.

I work with a German lady. We where having a chat the other day, she has moved house, and was telling me that all her stuff is coming over from Berlin.(we both live in London BTW)

I asked her ohh when, she laughed and said well the firm told me between 8:00Am and 12:00 noon. So she said, that means not a second after 12:00, you know how efficeint us Germans are.

The above is actulay true. we both laughed at it, now neither of us relly buy into the sterotype, why then did we laugh?

Perhaps because it was ironic laughter? No because for every joke there must be a 'butt' that is a given, and we all laugh at other people.

Does that mean she hates her fellow country men, or that I'm racist where Germas are concerned?

As for value, I have already said that there is no inherent morality invovled with sterotypes, only what we do with them matters. If you find no value then for you there is none, others will find some value I think.

Myself, I treat them as jokes, so the value for me is laughter.

A differant value is when I encounter on of the 'stupid ones' that actualy belive sterotypes are real, then the value in that is it helps me understand 'Ohhhh you're a moron', and lets me know that such a person is to be avioded.

Value is subjective innit.

So she was in fact laughing at people who buy into the stereotype that Germans are efficient. And that automatically turns all stereotypes into a joke. Right.

So, anything you can crack a joke about is in fact nothing more than a joke, without inherent moral value?

The irony is quite biting.

I used to have a friend with a German mother. She always had an accent. "Boys! Come und essen!" She was very nice, and always, always, had food on the table. Germans like to feed anyone who walks in the door.

and alchohol.

Her mother came to visit from Berlin. I have no idea what her real name. I just knew her as "Omi." Kindest old girl you ever met. She spoke about as much english as I do German, so we could more or less communicate.

She was fond of sitting on the porch in summer, and drinking warm Jagermeister.
My own ancestry hopped off the boat from Hannover four generations ago, and I cant stomach the stuff. She went to stand up, toddled a bit, and sat back down.

"Whew. Eine Liebe Mein (LIQUOR)"

So, my experience with Germans?

They like to eat and drink.
A Lot.

Your professor also does not appear to be aware of the fact that there is more genetic variation between members of the same "race" than there is between "races".

This.

Because even if, all cultural factors being equal, Asians' average IQs were 3 points higher than Western Europeans (for the sake of argument) - this in no way tells you how intelligent any particular member of that race is, or the likelihood of them being above or below average.

But if you don't understand how irrelevant such an 'average IQ difference' is, then you can make mistake of thinking this means that an given Asian will be slightly smarter than any given Western European. That's why people don't think it's useful to publicise - because ignorant racists try and use it as justification for their beliefs (when in reality it does no such thing).

No, they don't constitute racism all by themselves. But I would say they form the foundation.

Might be.

This.

Because even if, all cultural factors being equal, Asians' average IQs were 3 points higher than Western Europeans (for the sake of argument) - this in no way tells you how intelligent any particular member of that race is, or the likelihood of them being above or below average.

But if you don't understand how irrelevant such an 'average IQ difference' is, then you can make mistake of thinking this means that an given Asian will be slightly smarter than any given Western European. That's why people don't think it's useful to publicise - because ignorant racists try and use it as justification for their beliefs (when in reality it does no such thing).
So we should stop publicizing it because of how non-science will abuse it? How others will use something doesn't change its validity; it's not like nuclear weaponry makes nuclear physics invalid.

Of course we shouldn't expect everyone to be like the averages; the average person has one testicle and one ovary, this doesn't mean that most people are that way. But that people would judge a person based on the averages of a group is a problem in itself, not a problem with saying what the averages are.

So we should stop publicizing it because of how non-science will abuse it? How others will use something doesn't change its validity; it's not like nuclear weaponry makes nuclear physics invalid.

Indeed not. But neither do we tend to publicise how to make nuclear bombs.

Of course we shouldn't expect everyone to be like the averages; the average person has one testicle and one ovary, this doesn't mean that most people are that way. But that people would judge a person based on the averages of a group is a problem in itself, not a problem with saying what the averages are.

But what does this average actually tell you? As you say, plenty of averages are meaningless. The fact it isn't widely publicised is also probably to do with the fact it isn't particularly relevant to anything. It's not like it's being censored, is it? If it was truly ground-breaking stuff, I'm sure it would be out there. The fact that it can be taken out of context to reinforce stereotypes, is just another reason why it's not useful. It's not exactly going to help with the problem, is it?

Almost everyone has more feet than the average person!
(you see, since a few people have lost one or both feet, the average is a number slightly less than two...)

Almost everyone has more feet than the average person!
(you see, since a few people have lost one or both feet, the average is a number slightly less than two...)

Feetist!

Indeed not. But neither do we tend to publicise how to make nuclear bombs.
That's different, since nuclear bombs have the potential to cause millions of deaths...


But what does this average actually tell you? As you say, plenty of averages are meaningless. The fact it isn't widely publicised is also probably to do with the fact it isn't particularly relevant to anything. It's not like it's being censored, is it? If it was truly ground-breaking stuff, I'm sure it would be out there. The fact that it can be taken out of context to reinforce stereotypes, is just another reason why it's not useful. It's not exactly going to help with the problem, is it?
How can you be so sure, until we try? I wouldn't be too surprised if the slight differences in averages would have to do with regional differences in the more recent natural selection; perhaps different societies would reward braun vs. brain in different ways, and this alone might've put different kinds of selective pressure on people from different regions in recent times... well, recent in terms of evolutionary history. I think it might be something worth looking into.

That's different, since nuclear bombs have the potential to cause millions of deaths...

It's the principle. Just because something is 'science' doesn't make it good or desirable to know, or unable to cause harm, or that it should be publicized. It's not that simple.

Anyway, you compared to physics, I couldn't pass up this obvious retort :p

How can you be so sure, until we try? I wouldn't be too surprised if the slight differences in averages would have to do with regional differences in the more recent natural selection; perhaps different societies would reward braun vs. brain in different ways, and this alone might've put different kinds of selective pressure on people from different regions in recent times... well, recent in terms of evolutionary history. I think it might be something worth looking into.

Exactly - this research raises further questions. It doesn't really answer anything in itself. Another reason why the scientific community isn't proclaiming it a revelation....But it leaves itself open to be read as some sort of conclusion by a layman with an agenda.

I'm sure anybody in the field can look into it if they want.

Stereotypes are merely a replacement word for "generalization," courtesy of liberal multiculturalists. Generalizations an absolute must for survival. The fact is that cultures and peoples are "diverse." They are different and you are safe making certain generalizations. For instance, in Iran you can expect to be treated as an honored guest in homes, even if you are an American or an Iraqi. In the Muslim world, people DO NOT wipe with the same hand they eat from. It is safe to assume that politicians are a lower life form. It is safe to assume that CHIMPS are dangerous, not just cute cuddy critters. It is safe to assume that gays are generally liberals. It is safe to assume cats are not altruistic and that dogs are pack animals. The Irish and Indians really do have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. The French have stinky armpits. The Germans, neat and tidy. Indians from India can be rather anal about germs.
Just because there are exceptions to the rules does not mean "stereotypes" shouldn't be used. The reason the word the word generalization has been replaced with stereotype is to place a negative connotation on a natural human instinct, because we are being re-made into what the media and liberal think tanks want us to be. Our former loyalty to family, nation and people is being replaced with the new world order, where the only loyalty is to authority, government authority. Hence, the multiculturalists' goal is to eradicate culture and any distinctions amongst people so their socialist utopia can be realized. They are not smart enough to open their eyes and see that for the whole of human history and at present, people will find ways to be a part of some kind of group, and people will find reasons to fight.
Trying to eradicate our distinction is nothing short of genocide, frankly.

I didn't mean it prevented them from discussing the topic; obviously race is a major issue in the US, but there's certain things ABOUT it that are too taboo to say. As for the specifics, maybe I'll ask him about them next time I walk by his office...

And yet they've been said in bestsellers. Your premise is wrong.

How can you be so sure, until we try? I wouldn't be too surprised if the slight differences in averages would have to do with regional differences in the more recent natural selection; perhaps different societies would reward braun vs. brain in different ways, and this alone might've put different kinds of selective pressure on people from different regions in recent times... well, recent in terms of evolutionary history. I think it might be something worth looking into.

Um. Again, your premise that we have not studied human biology, evolutionary history, genetics, intelligence, etc, is simply untrue.

We've studied the Human Genome and discovered there is jack-all validity to race as it is commonly understood. As Ryadn pointed out and you ignored, there is more variation genetically within so-called races than among so-called races.

Stereotypes are merely a replacement word for "generalization," courtesy of liberal multiculturalists. Generalizations an absolute must for survival. The fact is that cultures and peoples are "diverse." They are different and you are safe making certain generalizations. For instance, in Iran you can expect to be treated as an honored guest in homes, even if you are an American or an Iraqi. In the Muslim world, people DO NOT wipe with the same hand they eat from. It is safe to assume that politicians are a lower life form. It is safe to assume that CHIMPS are dangerous, not just cute cuddy critters. It is safe to assume that gays are generally liberals. It is safe to assume cats are not altruistic and that dogs are pack animals. The Irish and Indians really do have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. The French have stinky armpits. The Germans, neat and tidy. Indians from India can be rather anal about germs.
Just because there are exceptions to the rules does not mean "stereotypes" shouldn't be used. The reason the word the word generalization has been replaced with stereotype is to place a negative connotation on a natural human instinct, because we are being re-made into what the media and liberal think tanks want us to be. Our former loyalty to family, nation and people is being replaced with the new world order, where the only loyalty is to authority, government authority. Hence, the multiculturalists' goal is to eradicate culture and any distinctions amongst people so their socialist utopia can be realized. They are not smart enough to open their eyes and see that for the whole of human history and at present, people will find ways to be a part of some kind of group, and people will find reasons to fight.
Trying to eradicate our distinction is nothing short of genocide, frankly.

You have a very odd view of multiculturalism if you think its goal is to eradicate all distinctions between cultures.

But, then again, you are using "culture" as more acceptable euphamism for race -- which you are correct in thinking isn't a very valid concept except as a socio-political construct.

Stereotypes are merely a replacement word for "generalization," courtesy of liberal multiculturalists. Generalizations an absolute must for survival. The fact is that cultures and peoples are "diverse." They are different and you are safe making certain generalizations. For instance, in Iran you can expect to be treated as an honored guest in homes, even if you are an American or an Iraqi. In the Muslim world, people DO NOT wipe with the same hand they eat from. It is safe to assume that politicians are a lower life form. It is safe to assume that CHIMPS are dangerous, not just cute cuddy critters. It is safe to assume that gays are generally liberals. It is safe to assume cats are not altruistic and that dogs are pack animals. The Irish and Indians really do have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. The French have stinky armpits. The Germans, neat and tidy. Indians from India can be rather anal about germs.
Just because there are exceptions to the rules does not mean "stereotypes" shouldn't be used. The reason the word the word generalization has been replaced with stereotype is to place a negative connotation on a natural human instinct, because we are being re-made into what the media and liberal think tanks want us to be. Our former loyalty to family, nation and people is being replaced with the new world order, where the only loyalty is to authority, government authority. Hence, the multiculturalists' goal is to eradicate culture and any distinctions amongst people so their socialist utopia can be realized. They are not smart enough to open their eyes and see that for the whole of human history and at present, people will find ways to be a part of some kind of group, and people will find reasons to fight.
Trying to eradicate our distinction is nothing short of genocide, frankly.

Stereotypes are a liberal conspiracy to strengthen government and spread socialist utopia in which our homogeneity is the result of ideological genocide?

Wow.

http://imagechan.com/images/71e741565193b5826963d210352646ba.jpg

I can't actually be bothered to list all the errors and inconsistencies in your lovely wall of text. But thanks for giving me a reason to use that pic, I never thought I would be able to :p

Indeed not. But neither do we tend to publicise how to make nuclear bombs.



[snip]


Yes we do. You can find all the info you need to build one on wiki of all places, and if that doesn't work, a trip to your local library will probably yeild the information.

As for stereotypes, they are just a lazy persons way of avoiding getting to know an individual, although most individuals will conform, to a greater or lesser degree, to a stereotype.

Really, it's a chicken and egg conundrum: Do stereotypes arise because a majority of group x are like that, or do a majority of group x conform to a stereotype because it is expected of them?

Yes we do. You can find all the info you need to build one on wiki of all places, and if that doesn't work, a trip to your local library will probably yeild the information.

What's on wiki isn't really enough, a few simple pictures and an explanation of some of the principles.

If you can find 'how to build a bomb' in your library, let me know!


As for stereotypes, they are just a lazy persons way of avoiding getting to know an individual, although most individuals will conform, to a greater or lesser degree, to a stereotype.

Really, it's a chicken and egg conundrum: Do stereotypes arise because a majority of group x are like that, or do a majority of group x conform to a stereotype because it is expected of them?

Stereotypes arise because someone lazy or with an agenda reasons a generalization from meeting a tiny minority of a group.

Although culture can have an impact in enforcing a stereotype and, ironically, making people want to conform to it because it becomes a perceived norm.

What's on wiki isn't really enough, a few simple pictures and an explanation of some of the principles.

If you can find 'how to build a bomb' in your library, let me know!


That and a brain is all you need.

Stereotypes arise because someone lazy or with an agenda reasons a generalization from meeting a tiny minority of a group.

Although culture can have an impact in enforcing a stereotype and, ironically, making people want to conform to it because it becomes a perceived norm.

Peoples lack of originality also plays a part in conforming to a stereotype as well.