already exists, amazingly

ah my bad. don’t have an answer to that question at this time.

i mean i’ve been ignoring Biden’s garbage capitulation to the false framing that immigrants are doing crime and rapes en masse and that this is a serious concern.

i’m gonna ignore it into the future but i’ve been ignoring it too.

but then alphabetize it for readability

OOOSSS

based and the correct choice. it’s just been a new way to dehumanize and it’s never appropriate. just report it if you are genuinely concerned about bot activity, everything else is just nasty.

you are claiming a post about a government agency isn’t political. which is… kind of silly/ridiculous.

you are absolutely right and the rules of this community even state “no politics” so you have a right to be upset here. pretty disappointed with the mod team.

edit: mods appeared to be inactive for three days, have reported this community to the LW admins

government agency

lol

Ben Shapiro is already blaming the attempt on DEI in the Secret Service. Not joking.

edit: also comm rule 2 is no politics, surprised this is still up.

is this good for the Biden campaign guys someone let me know i can’t tell

Love this explanation, thank you!

And some of the determinants of what makes valid- versus over-application are knowledge, cognition and time.

• I don’t have training in foraging, so without that knowledge I use stereotypes to avoid danger
• Children have lower cognition, so we tell them to stereotype that all strangers are dangerous until they are older
• A woman walking alone at night may not have time to examine her biases, and so uses stereotypes to keep herself safe

I am interested to know if there are other determinants as well. :)

excellent breakdown 🙂

🙌🙌 poignant advice

I actually often see drivers smile and wave at me, disproving that they are unaware, and nevertheless I do not adjust my beliefs in the context of maximizing my road safety as a pedestrian.

Woo the first real answer that just doesn’t argue with my semantics, and also really well written!

Yes, and I think the context, as you emphasize, is so key here. In situations that are vulnerable to the point of being time sensitive, interrogating one’s biases is absolutely valid to do later (or even better, before).

I am noticing a pattern in (what I consider to be) the real answers in that they mostly apply in situations where cognition is limited in some sense. Children have limited cognition so we tell them “stranger danger” and “cars can’t see you.” But, as we know from your example, cognition can also be limited by time which means that gut instincts and stereotypes often apply in dangerous situations as well.

Thanks for your comment!

“Don’t eat red berries, many red berries signify poison”.

The subject of the stereotype (red berries) even in your own example is still kept within its normal context (consumption). I will be keeping my own original understanding of “stereotype” for this reason. :)

The statement “a stereotype can never be constructive because it will always involve the need to be restrictive and limiting in order to be a stereotype” suggests that stereotypes inherently confine individuals to a set of predetermined traits, limiting their full and diverse expression.

However, stereotypes can be context-dependent and their restrictiveness can vary. For instance, in some contexts, certain conservatives might falsely believe that exposure to trans identities manipulates people into becoming trans, which is a restrictive stereotype. Yet, in other contexts, these same individuals may engage with trans identities through media consumption (fetishization; pornography), which contradicts the initial stereotype.

This example demonstrates that stereotypes can shift and are not universally restrictive. The fluidity of stereotypes based on context suggests that while they often limit and confine, their impact can vary, revealing a more complex and sometimes contradictory nature.

As far as the car example, of course the graffiti tagger is no longer going to hold the same stereotype true when they cease pedestrian activities—because the context has changed.

I like this enough, as long as you make the genuine effort to identify when you are shown otherwise :) I was thinking the same—I usually am very wary of every unfamiliar email or phone call as phishing or scam until given counter evidence.

hmm i guess im confused why you find this to be constructive? whom or what does it benefit?