[quote=“NathanHornby, post:1, topic:13248”] at least you see my perspective a little clearer, and perhaps understand the point that I’m making
[/quote]
I see your point - I just think it’s baloney. “No, no, my dear, I didn’t fart, it was the mere subtle breaking of wind.”
First off we should make this clear. Everyone stereotypes. It’s the way our brain works. This applies to other things besides just people, Fords are shit, Apple products are awesome, it’s better food because it’s “organic”, etc If you see yourself as a good person who uses their logic and intelligence to make informed assumptions, you need to get over yourself and realize many times it’s stereotyping.
And that’s ok.
MOST stereotyping is harmless generalizations. When stereotyping harms is when it reinforces negative assumptions and leads to things like discrimination and prejudice. Or when it marginalizes or puts down people - assuming they are lesser.
I get your point about stereotyping traits you are born with, vs cultures and organizations you choose to be part of. Certainly one can’t help their race, sex, sexual orientation, what country they are from, or any disabilities they are born with. Stereotypes of these groups are going to be the most broad and effect the most people because of the populations of these groups (stereotype women and you do it to half the planet.)
When it comes to the nuances of religion, I suppose some things are acknowledged differences with out being stereotypes. I made the statement once that Protestants don’t believe in The Immaculate Conception, and @Medievalist showed me a sect that in fact did - an exception to the rule. I would still say the statement isn’t stereotyping, nor would your examples of gluttony is a sin, or that Christians believe in the resurrection of Christ. In general these doctrine stereotypes are harmless, no one is being discriminated against when you say “Christians believe you get to heaven by works.” when in fact many believe it is only by grace.
However, there are other areas that becomes more grey, and people who aren’t familiar are especially likely to stereotype. You can say “According to the Bible, gay sex is a sin.” But you can’t say something like, “Christians hate gays.” Not everyone follows that gay sex is a sin, but even those that do can follow the practice of “hate the sin, love the sinner” (which includes everyone).
Then there are examples that are very cut and dry:
Cue Lewis Black, “Brrrrttt! What?!”
Do you not see when you say “Christians are weak minded.” you are not only stereotyping, but it’s the worst kind - the kind that that promotes “discrimination and prejudice… marginalizes or puts down people - assuming they are lesser.”
First off - even if you’re an atheist, you make decisions based on faith every day. Every time we buy something we have faith those bits of paper and metal are worth something. Most of these are minor, or unimportant, and not as big as “the man in the sky” - but faith none the less.
But to assume Christians or people who believe in a religion or have faith are weak minded sheeple is in my mind just as bad as any racist or sexist stereotype out there. It simple isn’t true. First of, if it were true, there wouldn’t be 1001 flavors of Christianity. No, people think for themselves, think that the old way of looking at something/doing things isn’t right, and they split off to preach their truth. Second I know many Christians who are educated, smart, and anything but weak minded. The most religious person I know also happens to be the most intelligent person I know. She’s a family doctor, does ER work on the weekend for “fun”, and plays the cello in the local symphony. She’s one of those who can play a piece just about perfectly they first time she sees it.
Back to the original argument that there are “fundamental differences between organisational (sic) characteristics and personal stereotypes”. As I acknowledged above, I see the point about there being a difference between traits you can’t help - and cultures and organizations you choose to be part of. I just think that there is a difference on whether or not it’s stereotyping is hooey.
Here are a handful of stereotypes, with out mentioning sex, race, nationality, etc. Most of them are relatively harmless - but stereotyping none the less. They are not as broad of a generalization of a race or sex, but close your eyes when you read each category and I am sure an image will form in your mind - that is your stereotype.
hip-hopper - long jersey shirt, pants worn low with underwear showing, hat on backwards or to the side, hands contorted into symbols
environmentalist - wears Birkenstocks, smokes pot, drives a Prius
cheerleader - thin, prissy, popular, fashionable, wears makeup, concerned about looks, shallow, not smart
gamer/comic reader/role player - nerdy, no social life, weak social skills, no boyfriend/girlfriend, wears geeky clothes, bad groomer
jock - not very smart, popular, picks on weaker kids (There is a very special episode of MLP where Rainbow Dash learns that just because she’s athletic, doesn’t mean she shouldn’t like to read.)
actor/actress - dramatic, narcissistic, insecure, popular
skater - likes punk rock, graffiti, vandalism
hipster - skinny pants, nerdy glasses, vintage shirt, ironic hat
stripper - cheap, easy, daddy issues, drug user, not smart
solider - brave, patriotic, loyal, honest, baby-killer, order following robot
heavy metal fan - wears black band shirts, long hair
Catholics - drink a lot, have guilt
poor person - lazy, uneducated, liable to steal, lives in a trailer park or Section 8 housing, feels entitled to gov. handouts
programmer/techy - smart, dresses nerdy, bad social skills, has newest techno gadget
