This is about discrimination, I think. Things like racism, sexism, and so forth, are all examples of discrimination. People who like to discriminate pretend that their freedom of speech is compromised if they are prevented from discriminating, but it isn't so.

If a woman steals from you, it is wholly reasonable to call her a "%$£&&££ thief", because she is. But if she has (say) black skin, you might feel tempted to call her a "&^^%**££$ black thief". This calls her a thief, which is true, and it very clearly implies that many/most/all black people are thieves too, which is not. This is discrimination, and it's wrong because it unreasonably attacks a whole community when only one person has offended.

We can say what we mean, or need to say, without accusing whole communities of wrongdoing. With discrimination comes violence, maybe death(s), and maybe even concentration camps. It's not a good direction to travel.

Just my thoughts. :up: :smile:

Stereotyping isn't an invention of social media. It isn't new. It's a normal cognitive routine of characterizing, sorting and grouping. Whether stereotyping individuals and groups is a problem depends on how one goes about it. If one accounts for many features and has many categories into which individuals can be sorted, it isn't problematic. Focusing on 2 or 3 features and assigning individuals to 2 or 3 bins will result in crude distortion.

Another problem of stereotyping is that we do it to ourselves as well as to others. When we desire to be known as members of a particular group we will display stereotypes of that group. Clothing can signal to others that "we have achieved material success" (buy it at Brooks Brothers) or that we are hip, cool, and cutting edge. One probably wouldn't show up at an antifa rally in a bikini.

I consider members of our species to be more alike than different. True, we all have many individual features, but our individual features fall into categories. If this were not the case, it would be very difficult to make sense of each other.

Recognizably different groups in society, groups which can be accurately stereotyped, also have conflicting goals. A group with an established and comfortable dominance in a given neighborhood will probably object to a recognizably different group attempting to move into their turf. The problem in this case isn't the stereotypes both groups use, but their conflicting goals. Conflicting goals may or may not be resolvable.

This again is political correctness taken too far.
We have to group or categorize to talk meaningfully about larger numbers.
If we wish to compare average blood pressure for African Americans vs. Caucasians, for instance.
Or in describing an assailant, short, male vs female, race other features.
It is not grouping that is the problem but the attributes one might assign to the group and that is often more in the mind of the reader than the writer.

thanks for the reply!

I just dont understand why people wount find pride in being an individual. just to be clear; I mean finding fullfillment in their own free-thinking and "way of life" and not through other people in the "group" they might be, more or less guiding and forming them. group-mentality is a bitch. when you were young and in school it may be something like smoking with the cool kids in hope to be accepted. it should be something you grow out of. and I do believe most do, but there are big issues with this in both politics and religion. i.e. countries like iran and north korea, where this is the norm, whether people like it or not. why is it so important to "fit in" somewhere, anyway? :) better to remain a mystery untill spoken to then be someone likely to be falsly "classified" and jugded there after. and we shouldent make it to easy for those who are so narrow-minded and intolrable to their opposits.