becos the women around here dont hate me enough already

catefrances · April 2007

angelica wrote:

All black men are not good at basketball.

and white men can jump.

angelica · April 2007

catefrances wrote:

and white men can jump.

Exactly..... They can dance, too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3TKPDXvHqE

soulsinging · April 2007

angelica wrote:

A "positive" stereotype can be innacurate, fixed and prejudicial at the same time: "Stereotypes can be either positive ("black men are good at basketball") or negative ("women are bad drivers"). But most stereotypes tend to make us feel superior in some way to the person or group being stereotyped. Stereotypes ignore the uniqueness of individuals by painting all members of a group with the same brush."
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/special_initiatives/toolkit/stereotypes/what_are_stereotypes.cfm

edit: oh, and regarding "never accurate"...that is true if looked at in terms of the group one is typing, for example, all sorority girls are not "stuck-up" across the board. All black men are not good at basketball.

by this nonsense, all sociological studies should be discarded and outlawed, becos they are all inherently racist and sexist and prejudicial in daring to discover common trends among and between various ethnic groups and genders. how dare those bastards, right?

no, all black men are not good at basketball. but watch one NBA game and tell me how many black men vs. white men are playing. it IS true... on the whole, black people are better athletes, and this has been biologically supported (something about a particular muscle being much larger and stronger and leading to better jumping and running). nobody claims that this means all black people are great athletes or any white person is an inherently inferior athlete. anyone who does is PREJUDICED, not stereotyping. stereotyping would be expecting to get my ass kicked by a black guy on the court, but still being willing to play or have fun or not really care if that is found to be false.

regarding never accurate... the way that was written was NOT how you described. it read as in NO sorority girls are stuck up or NO black men are good at basketball... which is a far more ridiculous assertion than the stereotype itself. stereotypes do not say "all black men are inevitably better at basketball than any white man." they say "on the whole, black men are better basketball players." there is nothing wrong in that assertion. in fact, it is absolutely true and can easily be supported.

angelica · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

by this nonsense...

Glad to see you're keeping an open mind.

all sociological studies should be discarded and outlawed, becos they are all inherently racist and sexist and prejudicial in daring to discover common trends among and between various ethnic groups and genders. how dare those bastards, right?

Are you in any way saying that you believe critical discernment with an intent to learn is the same as a stereotype?

no, all black men are not good at basketball. but watch one NBA game and tell me how many black men vs. white men are playing. it IS true... on the whole, black people are better athletes, and this has been biologically supported (something about a particular muscle being much larger and stronger and leading to better jumping and running). nobody claims that this means all black people are great athletes or any white person is an inherently inferior athlete. anyone who does is PREJUDICED, not stereotyping. stereotyping would be expecting to get my ass kicked by a black guy on the court, but still being willing to play or have fun or not really care if that is found to be false.

My point that the statement that a stereotype is never true in it's sweeping nature stands. Stereotypes, apparently by definition, are non-critical-thinking shortcuts. In terms of "stuck-up" sorority girls, they are derogatory, judgmental and entitle people to project their own issues onto other and hence have a distinct "social ill" aspect to them. Apparently if you are talking about trends, and critical discernment etc. you are not talking about stereotypes but about realistic assessment.

soulsinging · April 2007

angelica wrote:

Glad to see you're keeping an open mind.

Are you in any way saying that you believe critical discernment with an intent to learn is the same as a stereotype?

My point that the statement that a stereotype is never true in it's sweeping nature stands. Stereotypes, apparently by definition, are non-critical-thinking shortcuts. In terms of "stuck-up" sorority girls, they are derogatory, judgmental and entitle people to project their own issues onto other and hence have a distinct "social ill" aspect to them. Apparently if you are talking about trends, and critical discernment etc. you are not talking about stereotypes but about realistic assessment.

i believe a stereotype is only a shortcut based on such critical discernment, based on information known by the person holding it. it is non-critical thinking in the moment, but based on assessment or prior knowledge and experience.

you are not talking about stereotypes, you are talking about prejudice... one's desire to use such stereotypes to demean or marginalize someone else.

everyone is stereotypical and i dont care who you say you are. you all hold them. to paint them as something horrible and wrong only shames people into hiding them rather than being open and honest about them, which would facilitate non-defensive discussion about them and make them more flexible. the conflation of stereotyping with prejudice has only made our problems with prejudice and racism and sexism more entrenched, as people who are very good and reasonable are made to feel like bad people for their reasonable beliefs.

angelica · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

i believe a stereotype is only a shortcut based on such critical discernment, based on information known by the person holding it. it is non-critical thinking in the moment, but based on assessment or prior knowledge and experience.

Right...it's about what's in the person's head and their past, and not really about the reality before them. I agree. When one is OPEN to see, process and assess reality as it is before them, then that person is being realistic.

you are not talking about stereotypes, you are talking about prejudice... one's desire to use such stereotypes to demean or marginalize someone else.

Interestingly, I have changed my opinion on stereotypes based on the definitions I have found and posted here. Also interesting is that you are telling me I refer to something not stereotypes, when I am the one using and referring to various definitions. I look forward to seeing the objective sources that back your view re: stereotypes, specifically.

People are accountable for their misuse of stereotypes. If they are held accountable, and feel shamed, that is about shame issues that person holds. I've faced my own shame issues, and they are the root of the human condition and are only connected to an outside source when in fact the outside source is acting shaming. Accountability-holding is not shaming. If you refer to blame, that's another entire issue that, yes, indicates an unresolved personal issue with the person doing the blaming.

soulsinging · April 2007

angelica wrote:

Right...it's about what's in the person's head and their past, and not really about the reality before them. I agree. When one is OPEN to see, process and assess reality as it is before them, then that person is being realistic.

Interestingly, I have changed my opinion on stereotypes based on the definitions I have found and posted here. Also interesting is that you are telling me I refer to something not stereotypes, when I am the one using and referring to various definitions. I look forward to seeing the objective sources that back your view re: stereotypes, specifically.

People are accountable for their misuse of stereotypes. If they are held accountable, and feel shamed, that is about shame issues that person holds. I've faced my own shame issues, and they are the root of the human condition and are only connected to an outside source when in fact the outside source is acting shaming. Accountability-holding is not shaming. If you refer to blame, that's another entire issue that, yes, indicates an unresolved personal issue with the person doing the blaming.

i have no desire to waste my time looking for sources. nor do i care if there are none. my point is, the definition is and should be wrong. stereotypes are the integration of sociological perceptions and there is nothing wrong with that. but pc folks like you treat anyone who has stereotypes like they are prejudiced, narrow-minded, and always wrong for it. this social environment of telling people they are bad for holding reasonable views is a bad one and counter-productive.

i have many stereotypes. i dont go to the south side of chicago... cos it's dangerous. if it's 2am and im alone and see a group of young black men approaching me, i get nervous. there's nothing wrong with that. statistically, it's pretty goddamn smart. now, if i meet a black person, do i assume they're a criminal? of course not. i have no expectations of their behavior. but i still hold those stereotypes in mind for appropriate decision-making.

whispering hands · April 2007

you know how they say the genious borders insanity??? this board seems to prove that theory.. why can't we all just be whom it is we were cultured to be..( by our families friends and those whom share importance with us0, instead of a conceived notion or precipice of what would hope we'd be??? because otherwise we are just what you all claim we are.. stereotypes..

And this place is always crazy like that.. I always read here because there are soo many new and virtually enlightened points of view different from my own; this is interesting to me. But I always fear posting here for the backlash almost each and every post receives.. it's almost like you all are battling for first; when we are all the same, we share one link in common.. we are human beings.. cheer up folks.. you could all be dogs ya know??
( of course maybe if we were all dogs we'd get along better)

angelica · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

i have no desire to waste my time looking for sources. nor do i care if there are none. my point is, the definition is and should be wrong.

Yikes, the irony of arguing the point from your opinion/preconceptions, independent of the numerous external sources that say otherwise, on the topic of stereotypes.

but pc folks like you....

Whoops! more irony!

...but pc folks like you treat anyone who has stereotypes like they are prejudiced, narrow-minded, and always wrong for it.

And again!

Seriously, you're using this caricature style of argumentation so regularly that it somehow must be working for you. It looks like you are adopting it. I would be careful to not internalize it, if you haven't already.

soulsinging · April 2007

whispering hands wrote:

you know how they say the genious borders insanity??? this board seems to prove that theory.. why can't we all just be whom it is we were cultured to be..( by our families friends and those whom share importance with us0, instead of a conceived notion or precipice of what would hope we'd be??? because otherwise we are just what you all claim we are.. stereotypes..

And this place is always crazy like that.. I always read here because there are soo many new and virtually enlightened points of view different from my own; this is interesting to me. But I always fear posting here for the backlash almost each and every post receives.. it's almost like you all are battling for first; when we are all the same, we share one link in common.. we are human beings.. cheer up folks.. you could all be dogs ya know??
( of course maybe if we were all dogs we'd get along better)

can i be a squirrel?

soulsinging · April 2007

angelica wrote:

Yikes, the irony of arguing the point from your opinion/preconceptions, independent of the numerous external sources that say otherwise, on the topic of stereotypes.

Whoops! more irony!

And again!

Seriously, you're using this caricature style of argumentation so regularly that it somehow must be working for you. It looks like you are adopting it. I would be careful to not internalize it, if you haven't already.

and way to point out disapproval of my personality rather than confront the truth of my points. i dont even know what your last statement means. but i do know that every definition you have provided has said stereotypes are negative and prejudicial and your statements have been supportive of this view that stereotypes inevitably are demeaning and that the people who hold them are dismissively judgmental. this is simply not true.

angelica · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

and way to point out disapproval of my personality rather than confront the truth of my points.

I'm pointing out the fallacy of your points--you are using stereotypes to prove your point ("pc folks like you", which first of all is inaccurate). That is NOT your personality. Bad habits do not equal a personality. The problem is it's no longer working for me with you, here, because you are disregarding external, objective sources, refusing to provide your own, and expecting your stereotypical and prejudicial opinions to be considered valid. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Back to shame: humans have shame for a function that is beyond the shadow aspect where shame goes wrong. Healthy shame indicates to us our human faults so that we recognize our limits, and flaws and adapt and adjust rather than perpetuate errors.

Abookamongstthemany · April 2007

baraka wrote:

You know it! Now that you are here, it a party train.

Hehe:D Sorry, I missed the party. I had to take off yesterday after that post and run some errands.

soulsinging · April 2007

angelica wrote:

I'm pointing out the fallacy of your points--you are using stereotypes to prove your point ("pc folks like you", which first of all is inaccurate). That is NOT your personality. Bad habits do not equal a personality. The problem is it's no longer working for me with you, here, because you are disregarding external, objective sources, refusing to provide your own, and expecting your stereotypical and prejudicial opinions to be considered valid. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Back to shame: humans have shame for a function that is beyond the shadow aspect where shame goes wrong. Healthy shame indicates to us our human faults so that we recognize our limits, and flaws and adapt and adjust rather than perpetuate errors.

and what about unhealthy shame? why is it so awful that a white guy avoid going into south side chicago alone on a weekend night becos he has a stereotype about the south side being very dangerous? yet he is made to feel guilty about that and is portrayed as racist for it. this is bad for everyone. it allows south side chicagoans to deny that there are problems in their neighborhoods and blame it on racism and forces the white kid to bottle his feelings up so that they only come out among people who might share his thoughts, which are more vitriolic for the bottling. then you have a negative cycle... white guy scared of the ghetto, only allowed to speak it to another angry white guy, both fueling each other's anger, inflating the stereotypes, and leading to REAL racism and the appeal of groups like neo-nazis... they are a result of people who have no outlet for their fear and anger except those who will feed those emotions and convince them the stereotypes are actually true. this is distorting an honest perception into a basis for hatred.

im disregarding your dictionary definition from webster becos the core of my argument is saying i think that is a bad way to define it. i dont have my own objective sources becos there are none and i am arguing for a new understanding of stereotyping and prejudice. that does not mean my points are invalid, just that they are not yet accepted. and i believe this is becos everyone is terrified of admitting that stereotypes are normal and inevitable and focus on eradicating ALL stereotypes (impossible and ridiculous) instead of honestly discussing how to live with them and discern harmless stereotypes from dangerous ones.

angelica · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

and what about unhealthy shame? why is it so awful that a white guy avoid going into south side chicago alone on a weekend night becos he has a stereotype about the south side being very dangerous? yet he is made to feel guilty about that...

im disregarding your dictionary definition from webster becos the core of my argument is saying i think that is a bad way to define it. i dont have my own objective sources becos there are none and i am arguing for a new understanding of stereotyping and prejudice. that does not mean my points are invalid, just that they are not yet accepted. and i believe this is becos everyone is terrified of admitting that stereotypes are normal and inevitable and focus on eradicating ALL stereotypes (impossible and ridiculous) instead of honestly discussing how to live with them and discern harmless stereotypes from dangerous ones.

You may have valid points. I have better things to do than weed through the stereotypes to get to them.

AmentsChick · April 2007

So, soulsinging...your argument is FOR gender inequality then. I'm curious as to what facet you want women to be subjagated?? Please clarify.

P.S. And, no I didn't care to read through 35 pages of previous posts for the answer. Sorry...I'm a little busy AT WORK...ruining my health.

soulsinging · April 2007

AmentsChick wrote:

So, soulsinging...your argument is FOR gender inequality then. I'm curious as to what facet you want women to be subjagated?? Please clarify.

P.S. And, no I didn't care to read through 35 pages of previous posts for the answer. Sorry...I'm a little busy AT WORK...ruining my health.

i want sex upon demand and no inane chatter. that's what your girlfriends are for. other than, you can do whatever you damn well please.

AmentsChick · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

i want sex upon demand and no inane chatter. that's what your girlfriends are for. other than, you can do whatever you damn well please.

Wow...you must listen to alot of Dr. Laura, don't you?!

soulsinging · April 2007

AmentsChick wrote:

Wow...you must listen to alot of Dr. Laura, don't you?!

who is she? i know the name, but what would her take be on my dream wife?

i made a semi-intelligent post outlining my views (which are NOT advocating inequality by the way) earlier, but dont really wanna look for it.

*edit* got it:

"im curious what stance you think i promote here. im not even sure i have one. nor do i see what relevance marriage rates would have on this survery. free love was a failed experiment and the conservatism we both dislike is simply a reaction to the excess of the free love movement. i dont doubt things are more equal now than they have been, nor that they will continue to be equal. but equal does not mean "the same." and all i posted this for was discussion about at what point does the pursuit of being the same hurt our happiness? equal opportunity and access is important to have as an option, but does it mean we should continue to choose options that make us unhappy just becos they are there? im not saying women should stay home and men should go to work, but i am saying women should not feel they have to work a job they dont want to prove they are independent, and men should not be prohibitied from staying home and raising kids becos they feel it is unmasculine. it should be about breaking down barriers to happiness and fulfillment, not replacing one form of expectations with another."

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

soulsinging wrote:

i want sex upon demand and no inane chatter. that's what your girlfriends are for. other than, you can do whatever you damn well please.

Ever live with a woman before?

becos the women around here dont hate me enough already

Comments

Categories