I don't know, I can say about Ireland we have -list a bunch of unfavourable characteristics- in spades here without necessarily being prejudiced against the Irish, no?

Bias for or against a stereotype (i.e. "group characteristics" occluding individual character) is prejudice. This psychological shorthand is, of course, useful for living amid large populations but can, and too often does, have adverse social-behavioral effects.

Maybe not the best title anyhow. If someone has a better suggestion that covers this, PM me.

I’m not sure the question makes sense. Stereotyping becomes prejudice when it’s prejudice right? They are not progressional stages of the same thing.

Language policing is the mask that seems to hide unresolved personal issues.

Trying a new title.

When does styling become profiling?

I think that prejudice and stereotypes do relate to one because when people think in stereotypes, which are like caricatures, it often leads to judgements about people in a negative way. For example, a few people who are struggle with weight issues have told me that they do feel that people make assumptions about them being lazy and a few other things.

I feel that the connection between stereotypes is also interconnected with stigma. Erving Goffman described the way in which certain aspects of a person, especially appearance can stand out so much in others' perception of them that it affects the nature of interaction in a detrimental way.

I think that your first title was far better because it was more powerful, but, of course, I get really caught up in analysing my titles and end up editing them so many times...

When I hear the word "prejudice" I think of pre-judgement, or judgement prior to having heard the evidence. When I think of the word "stereotyping" I think of typing, or categorization. Stereotyping can serve a useful purpose and is distinct from pre-judgement. It does not become prejudgment. Prejudgment does not need any help to become itself. All pre-judgement needs is to judge without all the evidence. Stereotyping, on the other hand, is based on some evidence, even if not enough.

Dogs know how to puke. Nothing can puke like a dog. That's a stereotype. Sure, there may be an odd dog out there who fails at a good dog puke, or another animal that's pretty good at, or maybe even better at puking, but generally speaking, the "type" is a good puker. The judgement is in the goodness of the puking, not in the puking itself. If I said "That dog can puke" whilst never having seen that dog puke, I would be pre-judging the dog. That's probably not fair to other dogs who take pride in their puking. And it's not fair to the dog. He may not aspire to, or want to be held to a goodness standard of puking. But pre-judging a dog as a good puker, or even just a puker, does not follow from the stereotype or an expansion thereof.

Dammit, have 'em both. :party:

:lol:

It is unacceptable wherever faulty generalizations are of any concern. But that concern rarely exists.

I think that sounds far more explicit. I think that prejudice needed to be in there because that is the way in which stereotypes create difficulties.

Dogs know how to puke. Nothing can puke like a dog... — James Riley

The weirdest example of prejudice/stereotyping yet. At least it has a biblical referent:

"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" Proverbs 26:11

Stereotypes are unquestionably useful, we can glean a lot from a mere glance at a stranger, for instance, but they typically contain negative attributes and promote biases.

I think that prejudice and stereotypes do relate to one because when people think in stereotypes, which are like caricatures, it often leads to judgements about people in a negative way. For example, a few people who are struggle with weight issues have told me that they do feel that people make assumptions about them being lazy and a few other things. — Jack Cummins

I wouldn’t call them caricatures, they are generalizations based on common occurrence. Fat people do tend to be lazier. They are unhealthy and have less energy. That’s is a negative judgement sure, but an accurate generalization.

To the new title:

Unacceptable stereotyping is when the stereotyping is either based on something other than merely noticing a pattern (like prejudice or bias) or when the stereotype is being used to justify treatment of the stereotyped type.
Basically there are fair and unfair stereotypes. Unfair stereotypes are the unacceptable ones because they are about the target and not the behaviour/trait we are calling a stereotype.

Stereotyping it seems to me is in form always a category error. Therefore illegitimate in argument. On the other hand, the truth is always legitimate in argument. Therefore what truth there may be in stereotyping is acceptable in argument - the question then being how much and to what degree. .

Juxtaposed is prejudice and discrimination, almost any distinction between these buried under common usage. They fall under at least four categories: necessary and unnecessary, good and bad.

And this just the beginning of a complicated and difficult topic. But the words themselves, "stereotyping" and "unacceptable," also have a quality of being in the eye of the beholder. The easy way out, then, is simply to let the mods mod. If we-all have reasonable expectations, then in nearly all cases they will be exceeded. PMing available for clarification.

At the same time there do seem some words that might be red flags. We know now that there is no such thing as race. Therefore "race" must be a suspect word. "Racism" and "racist," and the other hand, refer to real things, but clearly are words that must be used with at least some care. And categorical arguments are suspect. All blondes are pretty, or prettier. Well, are they? And so forth.

So it seems that while moderation is the mods business, things they might look for and act on is fallacious argument unredeemed by truth, and suspect words.

Prejudice and stereotype cut both ways. Tall, slim men are subject to more favorable stereotyping than short fat men. A head of thick hair (of whatever type) gets better press than thin patchy hair (irregular spots without hair). Shaved male heads have been subject to extensive amelioration in the last couple of decades--it is no longer the sign of a radical fringe group. There are many examples where various features, skills, histories, and so on that are advantageous to the individual.

Skin tone is famously subject to all sorts of prejudice, stereotyping, preference, race-related emotional reactions, and so on -- among all groups of humans. Both positive and negative emotions are involved. And it is apparently difficult to get it right. Here is the Spanish postage stamp set where the lightest stamp is the most valuable. There are several ways this could have been done better.



I do not see a possible world free of prejudice and stereotyping. There are way too many of us for each encounter to get a 100% unbiased reception. We can, on occasion, rig up encounters where biases are minimized. Supposedly, a jury trial is one such situation. Group job interviews (several interviewers, one applicant at a time) can minimize bias.

Apparently

I like the 'when' in the title. A stereotype is unacceptable when the (pre)judgement is acted on, and is directly proportional to the power and authority of the actor.

Fat people do tend to be lazier. They are unhealthy and have less energy. That’s is a negative judgement sure, but an accurate generalization. — DingoJones

I don't know if it is accurate on average. It might be misleading anyway, because stereotypically, unhealthy people have less energy and tend to do less and so run to fat because of illness rather than laziness. The stereotype becomes toxic though when it is applied by - say - social workers to separate the deserving from the undeserving poor, because even if it were usually true, if it is not universally true it must result in injustice.

We can, on occasion, rig up encounters where biases are minimized. Supposedly, a jury trial is one such situation. Group job interviews (several interviewers, one applicant at a time) can minimize bias. — Bitter Crank

"Blind” auditions for symphony orchestras reduced sex-biased hiring and improved female musicians' likelihood of advancing out of preliminary rounds, which often leads to tenured employment.

Is this song acceptable these days? "That's What I Like About the South... (1947)

I like the 'when' in the title. A stereotype is unacceptable when the (pre)judgement is acted on, and is directly proportional to the power and authority of the actor. — unenlightened

I disagree. It depends on what the act is that is based upon on that pre-judgement. And I don’t think it has anything to do with the power and authority of the actor, let alone directly proportional. If the stereotyping is unacceptable, it is unacceptable regardless of the power and authority of the state be making it.

I don't know if it is accurate on average. It might be misleading anyway, because stereotypically, unhealthy people have less energy and tend to do less and so run to fat because of illness rather than laziness. The stereotype becomes toxic though when it is applied by - say - social workers to separate the deserving from the undeserving poor, because even if it were usually true, if it is not universally true it must result in injustice. — unenlightened

A fair point and I agree with the bolder portion in particular. A good example of a stereotype being unacceptable because it is used in fallacious reasoning.

My take on this:
As a reminder morals can be simplfied as: the most damaging thing is when we value a social construct or object over the lives or well beings of others.

It depends on the cultural influence of the individual, some may find it offensive and some may not, some may find what your stereotyping to be accurate and some may not.
It is for this reason that you must know the individual properly in order to know what level of stereotyping is acceptable.

I will use an example that some will find offesive at first glance but please note this to create understanding.
To clarify, I am a white guy in the UK and this is my interpritation of how I see this subject:

The word nigger has a unethical history to say the least, it has negatively influenced nearly every black person on the planet with its history and meaning.
Then you have the word nigga, a word used/popularised in black rap and gang culture with the meaning I can mostly describe as a brother of the same background.

This leads to a divide into how people wish to treat using the word nigga, black ethnicities who don't wish to make rap or gang influence apart of their culture would call it offensive.
While black ethnicities who are influenced by gang or rap culture accept the word nigga as a means to call someone brother of the same background. (in most cases)

This is why the word nigga itself to be used with all black ethinicities is stereotyping because its generalising the whole black community when there are different cultures.
This stereotyping, assumption or prejudice of culture is what can lead to dispute/arguments.

I'd say the analysis would have to be multi-dimensional. As @tim wood pointed out, a stereotype is always impermissible in the context of a formal, deductive inquiry. But stereotypes are also a useful shorthand our brain uses - useful because it conserves "bandwith" we might better use for other endeavours.

In addition to what @Bitter Crank has said about positive stereotypes, it could also be argued that stereotypes can be and are actively used by people to make statements about themselves. They're used to demonstrate group affiliation, or political leanings etc.

So what are the various factors that go into it? I'd say:
It's worse to generalize over more people
It's worse to generalize based on bad evidence
it's worse the more you affect the individual
It's worse the more the stereotype leads to a systematic treatment.

The stereotype becomes toxic though when it is applied by - say - social workers to separate the deserving from the undeserving poor, because even if it were usually true, if it is not universally true it must result in injustice.
— unenlightened

A fair point and I agree with the bolder portion in particular. A good example of a stereotype being unacceptable because it is used in fallacious reasoning. — DingoJones

Well I'll press you a little there. Imagine the same social worker applies the same fallacious reasoning in choosing a life partner. It seems to me that this is something one might remonstrate about if one cared for the social worker as a friend, but not something socially unacceptable in the way that it would be applied to professional life, and that because the social worker has power qua social worker as distinct from the privilege of personal foibles in private life. Liberty requires us to accept the one and find the other unacceptable.

What counts as unacceptable stereotyping? (Or when does stereotyping become prejudice?)

On a forum like this? There are discussion forums where already the software is set to disable the spelling of words like "fuck" etc. But here, given the forum settings and the generally combative, testosteron-laden atmosphere with a high tolerance for sarcasm and satire, it's really hard to tell what is unacceptable stereotyping and what isn't.

Rather little of what is normal here would pass for acceptable watercooler conversation.

I mean, sure you could replace "white" in such quotes with "Hispanic", which I am in part, and you can say some stereotypes about it. It wouldn't necessarily be wrong about some people, often a minority in that group. There are some truths in stereotypes, I think. But it doesn't condemn an entire group. Nor is an individual (or group) a collection of stereotypes.

I don't think the language is particularly offensive. Maybe if you put in "black" and say such phrases, it might be ignorant. But there's a long history behind that. I think you can say that black people tend to be better at sports than white people and that isn't wrong. It just doesn't apply to everyone.

You can also say that black people support Obama much more than is merited by his actions. And I get that. I think it's a mistake to think Obama was so good, but I don't see the problem.

It's not as if the quote imples white people are f**king cra*ers that only f**k there cousins or something like that. That would be racist or close to it. But that's my take, I could be well wrong.

Why won't it start at 54?

Why does the devil have all the best tunes?...



Phew. False alarm...