We live in a society full of stereotypes and generalizations. Everywhere we turn, we see people being classified into certain groups, and comments being made about those groups. Some of us seem to become very offended by these stereotypes and classifications. I'm posting today to question those people who become so easily offended, and ask you why it bothers you so much. What I've found is that the people who take offense to these stereotypes and generalizations are usually members of a certain group, yet a generalization commonly attached to his or her group does not prove true to him or her self.

What I wish to point out to you people is that the people making these generalizations or classifications do not make them absolute. The people who take offense always claim that the generalizations or classifications are absolute. Quite simply, they're not. Not EVERY person in a group X has the quality Y. That's just not possible. However, there's a very important point to be made:

Stereotypes and generalizations exist because they hold some truth. People who become offended by them seem to completely miss out on that point. If stereotypes and generalizations held no truth, then by their very nature, they wouldn't exist. And I'm pressed to think of an example where a very small minority of a certain group has a certain quality that is generalized and applied to the group as a whole.

So, my point is this: Next time you see an absolute generalization being made, kindly remind the person that there are no absolutes. However, keep in mind that the stereotype does hold some truth behind it and can't simply be discarded. The next time you see a generalization being made even WITHOUT absolutes, keep the same thing in mind. That's all I ask of you.

Mind you that I haven't proof-read this, so point out any flaws in logic you see. Oh, I didn't want to type "stereotypes, generalizations, and classifications" every time, so I mixed and matched them at random. Watch out for that Otherwise, I invite you to comment on this. I'm curious as to what other people think.

------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.
| AIM: CrazyJ617 | B-net: Flatulence187 | Pilot File Trade Network | Don't Click Here |

Yeah man, just because your cube has 6 sides, doesn't mean mine has to, too..

------------------
-Shade
"Bigger is best. Not better, best."
The Onion, America's finest news source
Bottom Quark, Science News and Discussion

That makes a lot of sense... in order for stereotypes or generalizations to be made in the first place, some kind of perception must first be made to base the stereotype/generalization on. Whether they hold truth or not is a little more iffy; the person's initial perception of a person belonging to a certain group may not have been correct in the first place, which means that the stereotype could hold some truth or just be blatantly false. I hope that makes sense...

------------------
What does THIS button
do...?

I think stereotypes are made out of the actions of only 1 or 2 people in a group. Stereotype and bad are almost snonymous. The actions of bad people stick out more than good people. For instance the stereotype of the crazy/bad acting teenager is only derived from the actions of a select few. Stereotypes are just bad interperitations from a group of people.

------------------
Don't drink and drive because you might go over a bump and spill your beer.
Coming Soon: The Mystery of the Council
- Visit my Website: EVO Info.

Well if someone calls me a punk teen and then says that all teens are punks and will beat people up, I'll kindly tell them that before I beat their ass.

Oh wait... that doesn't help either of our points.

Simply put, just because something has some truth in it doesn't make it right at all.

If you want to say some people in this do this, then say that. Don't just say ALL people in this do this.

------------------
Meh

That's what I was trying to get at towards the end of my little shebang.



Yes, stereotypes usually have a negative connotation. But, I personally think your numbers are off by a little bit. "crazy/bad acting" (a classification, I might point out) teens make up a much larger percentage of teens than you may think. Drinking, drug use, sex, whatever you may consider "crazy/bad" is VERY prevalent among teenagers. Check the stats.

And I think that just helps my point... those stereotypes exist because they're some (a lot, in this case) truth behind them. There are a lot of ****ed up teens out there.

[edit]ubb-boo-boo[/edit]
------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.
| AIM: CrazyJ617 | B-net: Flatulence187 | Pilot File Trade Network | Don't Click Here |

[This message has been edited by Flatulence (edited 01-04-2002).]

Yeah, I hate stereotypes. They are all really stupid.

/me laughs

Humor aside, I agree with you Flatty.

------------------
quitcherbellyachin.
---
New Fortress of Die Nacht released! (12/20) Download it from here! | | direct download | | Progress Log (12/20)

I think the numbers are a lot higher in some parts of America, and that the reason teens are often thought of as being bad or crazy is because that's usually how people hear about them... i.e. when they do bad/crazy things, and the media reports it. You have to take perception into an account. A stereotype or generalisation may NOT have basis in truth if the person making it had a distorted perception.

There's a difference, it seems to me, between 'stereotypes' and simple 'classifications'; and by their very nature stereotypes aren't true, because they expand classification beyond what it can reasonably support. If you're talking about logic, stereotyping exemplafies one of the classic logical errors: X is a thief; X is an Englishman; ergo all Englishmen are thieves. When it's put like that it of course seems ridiculous, but the fact that it's important enough to get put into logic texts means people must be actually making it; and indeed, when the real world starts obscuring the logical bones of the problem, we see people making that sort of argument all the time.

Classification is one thing. It's reasonable to say that, as 'ttfn' is an example of AOLspeak, people who use it belong to the class of people who use AOLspeak. However, to say that, as some people who use AOLspeak are stupid, people who use AOLspeak are stupid is just ridiculous and has no basis at all. While the premise in this example may indeed 'hold some truth,' it is quite irrelevant to the conclusion.

So that takes care of logic. The other problem with stersotypes is, of course, that they are always intended to blacken the name of a group of people. Even assuming that you're correct and stereotypes always have some basis, the act of stereotyping is taking the worst charactaristics of the worst portion of a group and applying it to the whole; something for which there is no reasonable justification.

So: discard stereotypes.

------------------
'I can tell by your face that you belong to the monkey race
You're bound to look like a monkey when you grow old'
Squibix Web

Is there any real factual basis behind the stereotype that all Polocks are stupid, or was that stereotype invented by a bunch of ignorant bigots who hated immigration?

Stereotypes are what ignorant people use to stay blind and happy. Yep, the world is flat. I'll be able to sleep tonight content and secure in my delusions.

------------------
"The problem with freedom of speech is that you have to put up with so much dumbness of speech." - Shoe
"It is your fault, you have forced me to say what I think." - Plato
may the farce be with you

Fact: 80% of software engineers polled lack good interpersonal skills
Sterotype: Software engineers lack good interpersonal skills.
Yes, there is truth behind it.
Is it still wrong to say a blanket statement? Yes.

What do The Flames say about this?

What do you think they say about it?

Anatole.

------------------
God, money will do anything for you.
Trent Reznor. Nine Inch Nails, "Head Like A Hole."

Yeah, but whether or not stereotypes are true is not the issue of this post.

Flatty's saying that stereotypes generally have a grain of truth in them, and for that reason, can be useful. It's all about being a well-rationed individual and being able to learn what is available to learn from any given thing, whether the thing is presenting what you learned or not.

About the Pole example -- I imagine those immigrants were stupid, if you used an American, with their specific learning (ie, English, not Polish), as the standard. It's about realizing that your way of doing things might not be the only way...something that people back then didn't think so much about.

------------------
quitcherbellyachin.
---
New Fortress of Die Nacht released! (12/20) Download it from here! | | direct download | | Progress Log (12/20)

Just back then?

------------------
"The problem with freedom of speech is that you have to put up with so much dumbness of speech." - Shoe
"It is your fault, you have forced me to say what I think." - Plato
may the farce be with you

But I disagree with that. If the 'grain of truth' actually exists, you're much better off seeing it for itself rather than as part of a stereotype; and in most cases it isn't really 'truth' at all but just another assumption itself.

In the original AOLspeak example, what good is it to say that AOLspeakers are stupid? Does this suddenly reveal the fascinating truth that some of them have sub-standard intelligence? Of course not. If you've had dealings with stupid individuals you'll realize their stupidity, but all the stereotype does is lead you to assume you're smarter than anyone who says 'imhom' or whatever: obviously a flawed assumption given the evidence.

As for your excusing Polish stereotypes, I completely fail to see what you're driving at. Rather than making someone 'realiz[e] that [his] way of doing things might not be the only way,' stereotyping the 'Polish way of doing things' (if there's even any such thing at the base of the stereotype, which I very much doubt) only leads people to dismiss it even more quickly and completely.

------------------
'I can tell by your face that you belong to the monkey race
You're bound to look like a monkey when you grow old'
Squibix Web

What you're failing to realize is that a great majority of the people who use AOLspeak are in fact stupid. I've had countless "conversations" with AOLspeak-using people on b.net, and sadly, they *all* seem vastly uneducated. This is a stereotype. I know that not all people on battle.net who use AOLspeak are uneducated. HOWEVER, I use it as sign. When I see someone using AOLspeak, I put myself a little bit on guard, make myself realize that I could possibly be dealing with someone with the mental power of a 3 year old. Yes, that stereotype has led me to certain assumptions.... but, I do not act on those assumptions until proof is given. I only put myself on guard. If that's all a stereotype does for me, I can in no way consider it "bad" or invalid.

And you're still talking in absolutes. You must realize that you just can't do that. Yes, if you think of stereotypes in terms of total absolutes, that's when you'll get into some trouble.

------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.
| AIM: CrazyJ617 | B-net: Flatulence187 | Pilot File Trade Network | Don't Click Here |

So? Depending on your experience, you could use the same logic to justify any sort of predjudice. That certainly doesn't make it valid.



I fail to grasp your philosophical point here. It sound to me like what you're saying is, stereotyping people is fine as long as you don't act on those stereotypes; which is to say, you're defending stereotypes in all cases.

In the first place, what use is it being 'on guard' against someone's potential stupidity? If someone is stupid, his stupidity will reveal itself soon enough; which you of course recognize, because that's when you act on it. But couldn't you just as well wait to act with an open mind?

Because, in the second place, the stereotype not only fails to do you any good, it can do you positive harm. An example I see all the time is the distrust elderly people feel towards young teenagers. Passing a group of kids on the sidewalk, an old woman will often narrow her eyes and clutch her purse closer, prompting the young people--who never had any ill intent to begin with, and who after all have grandparents of their own--to make rude comments and otherwise demonstrate the contempt that seems to be expected of them.

Certainly, you're free to say you don't like AOLspeak--that's reasonable enough, even if, as a few people have pointed out, it represents an interesting evolution of language. And you're also free, I suppose, to say you don't like people who use it, though I would respond that it's your (potential) loss. But I still don't see how you can turn stereotyping into even a relative good: the results seem to me to be entirely negative.



I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, unless it's that you can stereotype people as long as you know the stereotypes aren't always true; which seems a little silly.

[This message has been edited by Danny (edited 01-04-2002).]

You've been missing my point all along. I noticed that in your very first reply that Glue later responded to. I don't think stereotypes are "good" or "bad"... my whole point is that they should NOT be ignored. My whole point is that they exist for a REASON. And in most cases, that reason is because the stereotypes hold some amount of truth.

Why would you disregard the truth?

------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.
| AIM: CrazyJ617 | B-net: Flatulence187 | Pilot File Trade Network | Don't Click Here |

Well I think that they're 'bad,' and I agree that they shouldn't be ignored: I think they should be stomped on wherever they appear. A stereotype may hold 'some amount of truth'--that is, it may me based on some reality--but that doesn't make it true at all (see my logical example above).

You're in turn missing my point, which is if there is any truth in a stereotype you should perceive that truth on its own merits. I maintain that stereotypes in all cases distort the truth, which I would disregard no more than you. I even wrote a big long post about it!

------------------
'I can tell by your face that you belong to the monkey race
You're bound to look like a monkey when you grow old'
Squibix Web

There are different kinds of stereotypes. Many have a basis in reality (southerners are IIRC, more likely to be Baptists and gun owners than other Americans, alcoholism is prevalent in Russia, most Jews and blacks in America are Democrats, etc.) but others are malicious falsehoods. Like the example of the stereotype of Poles as stupid and incompetent. Or the stereotype of Italians as dirty, or other stereotypes like:
Blacks are stupid and have no self control
Jews are cheaters, and kill Christian children in religious rituals
etc.
Many of these stereotypes are quite offensive. Others are less so. If anyone applied any of the above to me or anyone else, I'd give them a piece of my mind. On the other hand, certain other stereotypes aren't really offensive. I'm merely amused when people ask what language my family speaks at home, apparently thinking it could be Yiddish.

------------------
"Not believing in force is the same thing as not believing in gravity."
-Trotsky

[This message has been edited by Nathaniel (edited 01-04-2002).]

None of the second set of stereotypes you mentioned have much hold in civilized places. Sure, you'll find a few sheltered people who hold those beliefs, but you can safely ignore them.... I'm talking about stereotypes that are known to almost every person in the world. Those are the ones that hold some amount of truth.


------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.
| AIM: CrazyJ617 | B-net: Flatulence187 | Pilot File Trade Network | Don't Click Here |

Well, in this case we just disagree. You think stereotypes are all bad and shouldn't even be considered.... I don't consider them good or bad, but I believe that they hold some amount of truth, that should be taken into consideration.

I understand your point now.... and again, personally I agree that the truth can be distorted in some stereotypes..... but in many, all that exists is the pure, blind truth. Once again, that truth may not apply to all, but if it applies to any portion of the "group" then I believe it's valid.

Can we agree to disagree?

------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.
| AIM: CrazyJ617 | B-net: Flatulence187 | Pilot File Trade Network | Don't Click Here |

We've made leaps and bounds, for certain. But yes, of course there is still too much idiocy in the country.

------------------
quitcherbellyachin.
---
New Fortress of Die Nacht released! (12/20) Download it from here! | | direct download | | Progress Log (12/20)

I'll repeat what Scurvy said, since it was ignored: just because something has *some* truth in it doesn't mean its right at all.

Even outright lies can have just a little truth to them. That doesn't make them better, less distorted, or different from what they are.

I think, Flatty, that your view of what sterotypes are differs from what most people consider them to be. When you make a sterotypical statement you inevitably are including an entire group within it. You can't pick and choose. If I were to say "athiests want to suppress religious freedom for others," that's including the entire athiest group. That's putting every athiest, whether they hold true to the statement or not, in one box. That is wrong, and isn't at all fair. If I were to declare that statement in my own topic, I'd likely get several responses from people saying the same thing. That's because they see the sterotype for what it is. As for me, it'd be ludricrous to go back after the fact and say "oh, whoops, sorry guys, I only meant some of you." That's disingenuous, and goes against the very nature of what a sterotype is.

By the way.....the holocaust happened because Hitler fooled the majority of the German population into believing a sterotype.

UEC

------------------
"Wherever I have been, I am back."

-Gandalf

The problem with stereotypes is that the truths they are based on have become exagerated and twisted. They are caricatures of generalizations.

------------------
If we had all the answers, there would be no point to life. It's the questions that drive us.
--
If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined!
--

Incorrect. Hitler blamed the Jews for all of the problems that Germany was having leading up to WWII. The Germas needed a scapegoat, and sadly, the Jews were chosen. That, mixed with Hitler's insane idea of a perfect race, are what led to the Holocaust. Believe me, I've studied this in depth.

------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.
| AIM: CrazyJ617 | B-net: Flatulence187 | Pilot File Trade Network | Don't Click Here |

I disagree -- I think the German population would tell you they didn't even know it was happening.

------------------
quitcherbellyachin.
---
New Fortress of Die Nacht released! (12/20) Download it from here! | | direct download | | Progress Log (12/20)

Even so, what most people think of when they hear the word stereotype is the malicious and offensive kind.

theGluebubble: If they would have, then they'd have been lying. The sheer number of people killed and the sheer number of people involved in the killing, as well as the blatant nature of Nazi propaganda precludes the idea that anyone paying the slightest attention to anything didn't know.

------------------
"Not believing in force is the same thing as not believing in gravity."
-Trotsky

Ok, but the rest of my post still stands and is worth considering, I think. I'll stand corrected on this point, though.

UEC



------------------
"Wherever I have been, I am back."

-Gandalf

Oh, crap... that was rather rude of me. I just replied to your historical mistake and forgot ot reply to your main point.
Here goes:



I guess our definition of stereotypes differ then. The dictionary, unfortunately, doesn't go either way... here's webster.com's definition:

ster·e·o·type (str--tp, stîr-)
n.

1.A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.

It doesn't specify if stereotypes are absolute or not. Personally, I see most stereotypes not as absolute. Those stereotypes that have been made absolute are, in my mind, not worth giving any mind to. It's impossible to find a trait that applies to every single member of a certain group. I think I mentioned that in one of my earlier posts, or maybe that was just floating around in my head. But, the stereotypes that are not absolute, I believe, do hold a grain of truth, and should be considered.

I mean, even if you start a stereotype like "Black people are more likely to live in the ghetto and deal/do drugs".... well, I don't consider that absolute at all. To me, the truth in this stereotype says to me: "there are a lot of black people living in the ghetto and dealing/doing drugs"

Ugh. it's really late and I can't quite think straight. I hope that made some sense.

------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.
| AIM: CrazyJ617 | B-net: Flatulence187 | Pilot File Trade Network | Don't Click Here |

Oh sure, they knew the Jews were getting the short end of the stick. But I think it is probably true they had no idea of the extent of this.

(as an aside, I have traveled in Germany and spoken about this at length to a native German)

------------------
quitcherbellyachin.
---
New Fortress of Die Nacht released! (12/20) Download it from here! | | direct download | | Progress Log (12/20)

All right, I'm not going to bother specifically responding to all the replies to the original topic, but I will bear them in mind as I write the rest of this post.

Stereotypes are, by definition, generalizations about a group that almost never apply to all members in the group. Whether they are based on truth at all -- that is, if they actually apply to a significant portion of the group -- is irrelevant. Also, a majority of stereotypes are negative. As a result, there is always a nontrivial chance that, in applying a stereotype, you will apply a negative stereotype incorrectly. This is quite obviously unacceptable; you can't just hope that the target of the stereotype will be philosophical about it, politely point out that the stereotype is incorrect in his or her case, and walk away, whistling a merry tune and holding no malice against you.

For example, and I am speaking from personal experience, there is a commonly held belief that all South Asians own convenience stores, gas stations, hotels, or some combination of these. If someone came up to me (I am South Asian) and asked me if anyone in my family owns a convenience store, it would be difficult for me not to be offended. Stereotypes as the ideal you're presenting, Flatty, are great as a way of classifying people; it's just that they're absolutely wrong, and harmfully so, more often than not.

<edit> Ugh, just noticed that last Flattylicious post ... Stereotypes, although the definition doesn't explicitly mention it, are generally held in common English usage to apply to all members of a group. Think about it -- if I said that, for example, many South Asians own convenience stores, most would simply consider it a statement of fact rather than a stereotype. The essence of a stereotype is that it is stretched to apply to people to whom it shouldn't apply, and though your definition doesn't spell it out, you should know that is what it implies in usage.

------------------
Visit my EVO web site at http://www.evoverride.com!
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by lightning bolts." -- Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes

[This message has been edited by shayborg (edited 01-06-2002).]

wheee



That's a really good point.... I guess what I'm trying to say is that one should know that those absolute stereotypes can not possibly be absolute, but they still hold some grain of truth about a portion of said group.

Here's a big summary of the whole shebang: If someone makes a stereotypes and applies it to the whole group.... well, just because they've made it about the whole group doesn't make it true. But it also doesn't make it completely false, as in NO ONE in the group has whatever feature/trait.

Damnit. I had that worded a lot better in my head, and now it's tucked away behind the Diablo II gland. Ugh.

------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.
| AIM: CrazyJ617 | B-net: Flatulence187 | Pilot File Trade Network | Don't Click Here |

No, they knew that the Jews were being exterminated. Get the book "Hitler's Willing Executioner's."

------------------
"Not believing in force is the same thing as not believing in gravity."
-Trotsky

????x©@all Polocks are stupid, or was that stereotype invented by a bunch of ignorant bigots who hated immigration?

[/B][/QUOTE]

No, they're not stupid. However, having just survived the Taizé Convention in Budapest, where 27,000 out of the 70,000 attendees were polish, I CAN say that their organizational skills SUCK.

With all due respect.

But we had bunches of Poles wandering around the city, completely and totally lost. Not that this means Poles are bad navigators, but it wouldn't take much to do a LITTLE more homework and have "team leaders" who have had a briefing on this foreign city. Maybe a mass email. Nothing fancy.

Anyway: What do you call 27,000 lost and confused Polacks?
Answer: Damned if I know, but it's worth seeing.

(This was not an anti-Polish rant. I have met real live Poles and have great respect for them.)

Oh, and living in Saudi Arabia, you soon have no patience for bigots and jerks. I works with and was friends with people from all over the world. Americans, Brits, Scots, Pakistanis, Bangadeshis, Indians, Filipinos, Malaysians, Lebanese...the list goes on.

Basically: each group had their good guys and their bad guys. But the bad ones were very few and far between. The rest were all, without exception, absolutely great guys.

In short? If someone is a bigot concerning a certain race/people - chances are he/she/it has never met any of that race/people.

Cheers,
ElG7

------------------
"Quote it, paraphrase it, soak it in peanut oil and set it on fire. I don't mind in the least." - forge
Darkest Hour – An EV/O Saga
The Insane Klown Posse Website!!!
Slow-reading Story - Captain Canardley Ableson's Technical Guide to the EV/O Universe

I love stereotypes. They allow for more comedy.

------------------
jircle: for all your "hot" IRC chats
VoxHumana -- Comedy of the Future

ya know, I could really bump my post count without anyone noticing... ;P

------------------
quitcherbellyachin.
---
New Fortress of Die Nacht released! (12/20) Download it from here! | | direct download | | Progress Log (12/20)

test

------------------
quitcherbellyachin.
---
New Fortress of Die Nacht released! (12/20) Download it from here! | | direct download | | Progress Log (12/20)