Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8528065" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Bold added: these are exactly why stereotypes are a problem.To reference an earlier example, laws exist to limit the behavior of children, even though we know some children will not have problems, because the cost of not making that generalization is far too high. But as soon as we start assuming that children are always idiots or unworthy of respect simply because of their age, we have turned a useful generalization ("children are vulnerable and need protection") into a bad and even dangerous stereotype ("children are just idiots who must all be leashed for their own good.") This is literally a stock character drama (the "competent but still developing child who is condescended to by adults incapable of believing that a child could be worthy of respect" plot is common family drama.)Stereotypes are bad. Period. That's literally what the word is for. Hasty, ossified, and oversimplified generalizations. To be a "good" stereotype is to not be a stereotype at all, and instead a generalization, one understood to have limits.Like...this is like saying there's "healthy junk food." By definition, junk food isn't healthy. (Though there's definitely junk food that tries to pass itself off as healthy.) As soon as the food becomes healthy, that is exactly the moment when it ceases to be junk.</blockquote>