Its wrong to assume anything about a person based on looks period. Regardless if you're right or wrong. bobabanNot really....not even close. Assumptions/stereotypes are what has allowed us (as a species) to survive and prosper. Quick Example: You see a lion. You do not stop, think, and investigate to see if the lion is hungry, dangerous, etc. No, you think "oh ****, I need to get the **** out of here"...Guess what, you made assumptions. You stereotyped the lion (or insert any dangerous animal) People are cognitively lazy. We take mental shortcuts on everything...we make assumption, we fill in gaps (like those cool pictures where your mind automatically fills parts in). It is expected that we would do the same with people. You could be walking down a street alone at night, and you see 2 people on either side: an old lady and a thug looking guy with blood on his clothes. Most everyone is going to walk down the side with the old lady. Why? Because you made assumptions. You stereotyped the people...it is what has helped us to survive (both individually and as a species). Could you be wrong? Absolutely. That old lady could be a psychotic killer that actually wounded the other guy...you never know for sure. But your mind takes all the known data and makes assumptions automatically. So having thoughts/assumptions is not wrong...it can't be helped. It is what you do with those thoughts that matters...your actions
Who to blame for stereotyping...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="bobaban"]Its wrong to assume anything about a person based on looks period. Regardless if you're right or wrong. rawsavonNot really....not even close. Assumptions/stereotypes are what has allowed us (as a species) to survive and prosper. Quick Example: You see a lion. You do not stop, think, and investigate to see if the lion is hungry, dangerous, etc. No, you think "oh ****, I need to get the **** out of here"...Guess what, you made assumptions. You stereotyped the lion (or insert any dangerous animal) People are cognitively lazy. We take mental shortcuts on everything...we make assumption, we fill in gaps (like those cool pictures where your mind automatically fills parts in). It is expected that we would do the same with people. You could be walking down a street alone at night, and you see 2 people on either side: an old lady and a thug looking guy with blood on his clothes. Most everyone is going to walk down the side with the old lady. Why? Because you made assumptions. You stereotyped the people...it is what has helped us to survive (both individually and as a species). Could you be wrong? Absolutely. That old lady could be a psychotic killer that actually wounded the other guy...you never know for sure. But your mind takes all the known data and makes assumptions automatically. So having thoughts/assumptions is not wrong...it can't be helped. It is what you do with those thoughts that matters...your actions A lion is not a good example, we do discriminate by appearances to get the better genes for our children but we don't need to think mexicans are lazy people livingin a dessert wearing a zarape and a sombrero sleeping besides a cactus because of evolution, those are stereotypes, and fake for that matter, I'm mexican and I don't wear zarapes, sombreros, eat tacos all day and only listen to mariachis.
You people are hilarious.
We're not talking about being racist. We're not talking about negative generalizations or anything like that.
If a guy is wearing a metallica t-shirt, he VERY likely likes Metallica. It's as simple as that. Being offended by that is absolutely laughable.
Then people loves to tag themselves by dressing a style to define themselves, that way is easier to find similar people for them.You people are hilarious.
We're not talking about being racist. We're not talking about negative generalizations or anything like that.
If a guy is wearing a metallica t-shirt, he VERY likely likes Metallica. It's as simple as that. Being offended by that is absolutely laughable.
urdead18
[QUOTE="urdead18"]By the way, since when did it become so offensive to tell someone they look like they listen to metal?matthayter700I'm not claiming that it's offensive. I'm claiming that it's illogical. I don't think there's such a thing as what "listens to metal" looks like. Really. So if you go to a Heavy Metal Live Concert you will see 3000 individuals all dressed differently and in completely unique attire? So you'll see someone wearing fluro hotpants and a tank top standing beside someone wearing a white bonnett and flowing fluffy dress who is standing beside someone wearing a torn tee shirt and ripped denim with chains. etc 3000 people who don't at all wear anything similar.
[QUOTE="markop2003"]Giving a bad name to a group only works when the group has a definate way of defining who is part of the group. Therefore it dosn't work for stereyotypes though it can work for nationalities or religons, it can in some circumstances sort of apply to stereotypes ie "you give people who listen to x a bad name" or "you give people who play x a bad name" but then it is about something definate.matthayter700You still don't seem to be very clear about this. By what standards do we decide which kinds of groups are "something definite" let alone when that justifies the "giving them a bad name" accusation? As i said it applys mostly to religons and nationalities. As you can't be a a bit of a british citizen or bit bit muslim, you either are or you arn't. If there's room for variation it breaks down as everyone has different ideas of how far you have to go to put someone in a certain group. This can also work with certain activities as you either do them or you don't, it dosn't matter how much you do them or how seriously you take it. For example "kids who shout random insults at people on xbox live give xbox plaayers a bad name"
So if you go to a Heavy Metal Live Concert you will see 3000 individuals all dressed differently and in completely unique attire? Jaguar_ShadePeople quite often dress differently at concerts, if you look at some of the user pictures on GS you'ld be surprised what some of the metal heads look like.
Not really....not even close. Assumptions/stereotypes are what has allowed us (as a species) to survive and prosper. Quick Example: You see a lion. You do not stop, think, and investigate to see if the lion is hungry, dangerous, etc. No, you think "oh ****, I need to get the **** out of here"...Guess what, you made assumptions. You stereotyped the lion (or insert any dangerous animal) People are cognitively lazy. We take mental shortcuts on everything...we make assumption, we fill in gaps (like those cool pictures where your mind automatically fills parts in). It is expected that we would do the same with people. You could be walking down a street alone at night, and you see 2 people on either side: an old lady and a thug looking guy with blood on his clothes. Most everyone is going to walk down the side with the old lady. Why? Because you made assumptions. You stereotyped the people...it is what has helped us to survive (both individually and as a species). Could you be wrong? Absolutely. That old lady could be a psychotic killer that actually wounded the other guy...you never know for sure. But your mind takes all the known data and makes assumptions automatically. So having thoughts/assumptions is not wrong...it can't be helped. It is what you do with those thoughts that matters...your actions A lion is not a good example, we do discriminate by appearances to get the better genes for our children but we don't need to think mexicans are lazy people livingin a dessert wearing a zarape and a sombrero sleeping besides a cactus because of evolution, those are stereotypes, and fake for that matter, I'm mexican and I don't wear zarapes, sombreros, eat tacos all day and only listen to mariachis. My point was that you cannot have one w/out the other. Our minds AUTOMATICALLY stereotype/categorize/make assumptions about all things...people and animals -also, I gave another example besides the lion (the old lady example) -all these automatic assumptions our brains make helped us survive (both against man and nature) But it is not all about survival (just results from that)... -basically, it is evolutionarily beneficial to do so (stereotype). -this made us cognitively lazy -it now happens for all things all the time (as result of the links/associations our minds make b/w certain things) So we cannot say that these automatic processes are bad...we cannot help them. What is bad are the actions people CHOOSE to take after the assumptions happen (automatically)[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="bobaban"]Its wrong to assume anything about a person based on looks period. Regardless if you're right or wrong. dragon7x2k
Its wrong to assume anything about a person based on looks period. Regardless if you're right or wrong. bobabanThere's nothing inherently wrong. The difference is there are people who take more offense than need be in an assumption. That is how stereotyping usually ends up being confused with racism.
[QUOTE="bobaban"]Its wrong to assume anything about a person based on looks period. Regardless if you're right or wrong. JustPlainLucasThere's nothing inherently wrong. The difference is there are people who take more offense than need be in an assumption. That is how stereotyping usually ends up being confused with racism. Finally some support for my argument...
My point was that you cannot have one w/out the other. Our minds AUTOMATICALLY stereotype/categorize/make assumptions about all things...people and animals -also, I gave another example besides the lion (the old lady example) -all these automatic assumptions our brains make helped us survive (both against man and nature) But it is not all about survival (just results from that)... -basically, it is evolutionarily beneficial to do so (stereotype). -this made us cognitively lazy -it now happens for all things all the time (as result of the links/associations our minds make b/w certain things) So we cannot say that these automatic processes are bad...we cannot help them. What is bad are the actions people CHOOSE to take after the assumptions happen (automatically)rawsavon
Ah, yeah, our brains keep things easy, some things are out of our concience, we relate unknown things with things we have learned, otherwise nothing would make sense, we have to associate things with concepts we know.
[QUOTE="rawsavon"] My point was that you cannot have one w/out the other. Our minds AUTOMATICALLY stereotype/categorize/make assumptions about all things...people and animals -also, I gave another example besides the lion (the old lady example) -all these automatic assumptions our brains make helped us survive (both against man and nature) But it is not all about survival (just results from that)... -basically, it is evolutionarily beneficial to do so (stereotype). -this made us cognitively lazy -it now happens for all things all the time (as result of the links/associations our minds make b/w certain things) So we cannot say that these automatic processes are bad...we cannot help them. What is bad are the actions people CHOOSE to take after the assumptions happen (automatically)dragon7x2k
Ah, yeah, our brains keep things easy, some things are out of our concience, we relate unknown things with things we have learned, otherwise nothing would make sense, we have to associate things with concepts we know.
Exactly...our minds ACTIVELY seek out 'associations' to make b/w things (helps 'processing' later on) That is why I said that it (by itself) is not a bad thing...cannot be stopped or controlled. It is like saying hunger is bad b/c someone killed another person to eat them -the hunger was natural, the act was the problem[QUOTE="dragon7x2k"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] My point was that you cannot have one w/out the other. Our minds AUTOMATICALLY stereotype/categorize/make assumptions about all things...people and animals -also, I gave another example besides the lion (the old lady example) -all these automatic assumptions our brains make helped us survive (both against man and nature) But it is not all about survival (just results from that)... -basically, it is evolutionarily beneficial to do so (stereotype). -this made us cognitively lazy -it now happens for all things all the time (as result of the links/associations our minds make b/w certain things) So we cannot say that these automatic processes are bad...we cannot help them. What is bad are the actions people CHOOSE to take after the assumptions happen (automatically)rawsavon
Ah, yeah, our brains keep things easy, some things are out of our concience, we relate unknown things with things we have learned, otherwise nothing would make sense, we have to associate things with concepts we know.
Exactly...our minds ACTIVELY seek out 'associations' to make b/w things (helps 'processing' later on) That is why I said that it (by itself) is not a bad thing...cannot be stopped or controlled. It is like saying hunger is bad b/c someone killed another person to eat them -the hunger was natural, the act was the problem If we didn't relate things like that we should ask everytime we see a different kind of chair, stool, or bench if they have the same purpose, we wouldn't know if a color is the same if it has a different shade or if one person is the same after a haircut or getting old.Ever hear of the idea that some people give whatever kind of group they belong to (whether religious, racial, etc.) a "bad name?"
For my 2400th post I figured I'd post about the implications of this idea. Basically, rather than focusing the blame for stereotypes on the people expressing the stereotypes, it diverts some (and maybe a lot) of it towards people who just so happen to embody the stereotypes.
But when you really think about it, there's all kinds of ways to "group" people, and in turns all kinds of ways to stereotype... by what standards, then, do we decide which stereotypes it is appropriate to use phrases like "you give them a bad name" for?
matthayter700
Exactly.
To turn to a gay person (or a Mexican, or a black person, or a Christian, or a person whose parents have a lot of money) and say "you're giving that group a bad name" is already sort of an admission that you already hold that sort of stereotype against them.
As then, suppose you don't like blacks, and happen to meet a black person who you almost sort of like. He's the exception to the rule because you like him. But you wouldn't look at the fact that he's never been in jail, and then say to him "you give blacks a good name". No, at best, you just sort of like him despite the fact that he's black, while still having the same bad stereotypes about black people. Then the second that he shows up 15 minutes late to work, it's all, "you give blacks a bad name".
And then your friend might be thinking, "what the hell? You didn't say that to your white buddy after he showed up 45 minutes late to work."
Give *insert* people a "bad name?" That's a load of crap. The only way that that would ever happen is if you already treated *insert* people as the same person.
You people are hilarious.
We're not talking about being racist. We're not talking about negative generalizations or anything like that.
If a guy is wearing a metallica t-shirt, he VERY likely likes Metallica. It's as simple as that. Being offended by that is absolutely laughable.
urdead18
We're getting off topic here. The original post was more like this...
Two guys like some punk band, but they both dress in business suits and have neatly groomed hair. Then, the next day, they meet for coffee, and one of the guys just happens to be wearing spikes and piercings, and his hair is styled into a mohawk. The nicely dressed dude says, "man...you sold out. Us punk fans worked so hard to be treated as professionals, and now you've ruined it all. You're making punk fans look bad."
And no...he's not making punk fans look bad, he's making HIMSELF look bad. If anyone looks at that messy and spiky punk fan and says to themselves, "yep, I was right to hate punk fans", then that's ONLY happening because they ALREADY assumed the worst of punk fans. Right across the table from the freaky-looking dude, there's a punk fan who is dressed appropriately, doesn't look like an idiot. But no one is going to look at him and say, "man, he's making punk fans look GOOD."
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment