knapplc Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 But there are truths to every stereotype that's why they exist. * Whites are stereotyped into this caricature who cringes in "fear" every time a black or hispanic looks his/her way. * Blacks are stereotyped into the doorag, saggy pants wearing, gold teeth, gangbanger. * Hispanics are stereotyped into being lazy. * Asians are stereotyped into being good with math. * Jews are stereotyped into being stingy or frugal. * Irish are stereotyped into being brawling drunks. Now is every member of said group like the stereotype? Of course not. But they do exist even if they're a minority within that group. Yeah, it's an age-old argument. Everyone gets this. But stereotypes are BS because they often perpetuate caricatures of a person or group, rather than taking the person or group as they are. Are you defending stereotypes as a method of analysis of a group? I don't even know where you're going with this. Link to comment
'SkersRule Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'm not defending stereotypes at all. I'm merely saying that there is a degree of truth and accuracy to all stereotypes. Which is why when you said: There are no truths in that chain email. My God - it's a freaking CHAIN EMAIL, the stereotype of which is mindless twaddle. I responded with: Another stereotype based on some level of truth. Link to comment
knapplc Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Great. We agree that stereotypes are poor measures of groups. Meaning the email in the OP is worthless to truly diagnose Democrats. Link to comment
'SkersRule Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Great. We agree that stereotypes are poor measures of groups. Meaning the email in the OP is worthless to truly diagnose Democrats. Misleading in considering all...but deadly accurate in the description of some. Hence, stereotypes. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 I wouldn't say the OP was not conducive to discussion. Sure it perpetuates some stereotypes with in the groups but we did get the opportunity to discuss how those are not indicative of the whole group. The thing I found interesting was how closely I think the average republican was represented in the examples. On the other hand, the positions attributed to democrats would vary much more. I don't think it can be successfully argued though that there is not some truth in all the examples. It won't lead us to any greater understanding but whaddya want on a March Tuesday during the off season. I actually expected it to generate some attacks on me (as if those were my position). I'm sort of impressed the discussion went the way it did (so far). Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Just another reason I hate the two-party system. Just vote for the best candidate. Who cares whether he/she is a donkey or an elephant?.... Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 Just another reason I hate the two-party system. Just vote for the best candidate. Who cares whether he/she is a donkey or an elephant?.... I agree. For the most part I identify better with what my ideas of the republican party should be and I don't identify very well with what the democratic party does. But considering the republican party is not what it used to be and the dems talks good game (a lot of the time) but still do the same things as the repubs, all a guy can do is go with the best candidate regardless of party. Problem is "best candidate" is only a euphemism for the lesser of evils. There hasn't been a viable good candidate for President in quite a few years. It's very disturbing that out of 350M people these are the jackasses it comes down to. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Just another reason I hate the two-party system. Just vote for the best candidate. Who cares whether he/she is a donkey or an elephant?.... I agree. For the most part I identify better with what my ideas of the republican party should be and I don't identify very well with what the democratic party does. But considering the republican party is not what it used to be and the dems talks good game (a lot of the time) but still do the same things as the repubs, all a guy can do is go with the best candidate regardless of party. Problem is "best candidate" is only a euphemism for the lesser of evils. There hasn't been a viable good candidate for President in quite a few years. It's very disturbing that out of 350M people these are the jackasses it comes down to. It's all about who's got the cash and the connections. For me, I agree with you for the most part. I must say that during his election, I had a very high opinion about Obama and the things that he could do as president. Today, I don't think he has done a god job necessarily because our debt is ridiculous, but I feel like he gets blamed for a lot of Bush's screw-ups. In this election, however, I DO feel like there is a candidate who has the right views, is very intelligent, will cut spending where it is needed, and will do away with a lot of the "big government." I'm sure by reading what I've written so far, you can probably guess who I'm talking about. Ron Paul. I will vote for him in the general election whether his name is on the ballot or not. Link to comment
Recommended Posts