We need to open our eyes to reality.

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

I would posit one question torwards that statement, who gets to decide what makes you a bigot, yourself or others? 

No one does. One is either a bigotted or not.

Secondly, and I think this is the point claydisk was making, are some stereotypes not true, useful even? 

Never. A stereotype ascribes a particular cohort with a particular caricature or set of characteristics, which some members of that cohort may resemble, or display, but peoples behaviours and attitudes are not fixed, on an individual level as much as on the societal level, and the biggest problem with stereotyping is that it always has hidden connotation that feed into a narrative. This creates a problem whereby anyone who receives one characteristic purely by chance of a particular stereotype, is immediately associated by people who believe stereotypes are true to a narrative with all kinds of inappropriate associations that completely misjudge the truth of the individual they are confronted with. Ive been victim of this myself, we all I'm sure have at some point in our lives. It's called projection, and its a fear based insecurity that prevents people from relating to strangers.

Lastly, who is more likely to commit a terror attack, a syrian refugee , or an englishman on a H1-B visa? If you answer in the positive as to the syrian, you're a bigot by the standards of the current....zeitgeist.

English man. I can't think of any Syrian refugee terrorists incidents at all. And I read a lot of news.
I do recall the English terrorist who shouted WHITE POWER in a supermarket before attacking an innocent law abiding Sikh gentleman with a machete. POS nearly killed him.

www.independent.co.uk... .html

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

The past is a foreign nation, therefore to a younger generation, their progenitors ought be foreign themselves. 

Who teaches you about the past? Relatives and teachers who lived through it! Having had quality relationships in that regard growing up, does that make me by your definition a dual citizen? Lol!

Tribalism is everywhere, what else is youth fashion?

A conspiracy to seperate individuals into easily manipulatable and predictable control groups, perhaps.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: 0hlord

But aren't you yourself speaking of a rather large group in general terms....the media? Might want to specify and not generalize them.

Nope. I'm talking about a specific mental activity. It's not about any one group. Anyone from any background can make the mistake of overgeneralizing.

a reply to: 0hlord

We can't do anything but speak in general terms. Language is basically a set of generalizations. The trick is to realize that though a generalization or group can be spoken about as if it was an individual, it could never be so in reality, and they should never be treated as one.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: 0hlord

We can't do anything but speak in general terms. Language is basically a set of generalizations. The trick is to realize that though a generalization or group can be spoken about as if it was an individual, it could never be so in reality, and they should never be treated as one.

The point is its misleading, which leads to my answer to your first point. You are wrong that we can do no more than speak in general terms. We can understand reality beyond the confinement of words. And what I'm arguing is that doing so leads to greater truth and understanding of who individuals are.

a reply to: 0hlord

Bang on!

The simple fact of the human condition, is that over simplifying it renders all thinking upon it moot, and there is no greater over simplification than to suggest that all persons of like culture, ethnicity, political leaning and religion, are THE SAME. They simply are not, and the sooner people realise that the human race is simply too complicated to allow for generalisation, the sooner we can start to have real debates, real discussions, and the sooner the real learning and understanding can begin!

a reply to: 0hlord

Excellent OP -- S&F. Very well thought out and clearly expressed. Just beautiful.

Nothing more to add really except I agree 1000%.

People need to wake up and understand they are being manipulated by the power brokers via the MSM. On the one hand people talk of individual freedoms, and on the other hand they talk about the social evils of stereotyping and the like. However, in the same breath both groups unanimously agree the scourge of terrorism must be removed from our society. These two concepts cannot exist simultaneously in modern society

As I see it, this leaves us (as a people) two choices:

1. Stand ready to have all personal freedoms infringed upon and restricted so as to be politically correct and not stereotype certain segments of society.

NOTE: This is exactly where the power brokers and elite want you to be. Remember, they want to control the masses...they don't want to know your name. It's much easier to control the masses than it is the individual.

or...

2. Recognize (as a people) that terrorism in today's society is more likely to occur in certain segments of society (i.e. within certain nationalities / religions / cultures), and focus the efforts of eradicating terrorism from those segments of society. This is not the politically correct way (and certainly not the what the power brokers want you to think is an acceptable option).

Otherwise, there is no politically correct magic bullet here.

So, just calm down, little sheep; fear not the big bad wolf outside the gate..."WE" will protect you!

(...but we will do it on OUR terms, or so you think)

BTW...S&F for you OP. Though I may not agree with the entirety of your OP, I do believe there is a way forward from this mess, a middle ground if you will, if only mankind could see the forest but for the trees.

/quote]a reply to: 0hlord

you will find journalists and bloggers and commentators painting at least one social group in broad brush strokes with reductivist language, that ignore important details of social context or history.

a reply to: 0hlord

I respectfully disagree. You did generalize in your statement above. Naming the specifics of who are the journalists, bloggers, and commentators would not be generalizing.