Willing to bet most people think Kansas City, MO, though.Averant said:
Bet there's a reason for that, too.
Odd stereotypes you don't get
- Thread starter Relish in Chaos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bet there's a reason for that, too.
All norwegians are bad at english or fail to understand it, c'mon, that's just the old people =P
On the top of my head I am kind of --not confused or "don't get"-- but a little bit annoyed at the stereotype of "man"
Men are brute and very physical, incapable of displaying emotions they are irresponsible slobs who drink from flasks of beer and hit on women just to take advantage of them sexually and dumping them in the morning, damn sleasebags those men.
Unfortunately there are guys like this, but the therm "being a man" sets a really dumb stereotype and standard in my opinion, a therm I'd rather be driven out of use.
That's more about expectation than sterotyping I'll admit, but the label annoys me, and it's because of the stereotypical man some people hold prejudice to less "manly" men, forcing perfectly nice guys with their own hobbies under this pressure to "be a man".
I've ranted long enough, lol, just annoys me a little.
On the top of my head I am kind of --not confused or "don't get"-- but a little bit annoyed at the stereotype of "man"
Men are brute and very physical, incapable of displaying emotions they are irresponsible slobs who drink from flasks of beer and hit on women just to take advantage of them sexually and dumping them in the morning, damn sleasebags those men.
Unfortunately there are guys like this, but the therm "being a man" sets a really dumb stereotype and standard in my opinion, a therm I'd rather be driven out of use.
That's more about expectation than sterotyping I'll admit, but the label annoys me, and it's because of the stereotypical man some people hold prejudice to less "manly" men, forcing perfectly nice guys with their own hobbies under this pressure to "be a man".
I've ranted long enough, lol, just annoys me a little.
Actually, traditionally most people in most places (and probably still in most places today) were pretty racist and intolerant of outsiders. Before our modern globalized world outsiders were viewed as dangerous (usually because they were criminals, back in the days when most people never traveled more than five miles from where they were born).Colour-Scientist said:
Now the racist white people stereotype comes from the fact that for around 100-150 years Europeans practiced Imperialism on a grand scale using the power of industrialization, technology, etc. and pretty much ran around the entire world shoving their version of racism in the faces of everyone on the planet...
and exploiting the hell out of them and their countries to boot.
OT: also I always heard that "cracker" comes from white and flaky.
Agreed. I have met many a douchey Canadian, and while I don't know that many Americans to compare, I don't get how people assume that all Canadians are the nicest people ever. Igloos also make no sense to me. It gets cold up here, but by Loki, not that cold... Besides that, I've only seen THAT much snow to make an Igloo, once in my life.Marter said:
I've never understood the whole "you don't have a girlfriend? YOU MUST HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES" stereotype that I occasionally get.
I also don't understand the "you play consoles? omg you must hate PC gamers" stereotype. I guess I get that one a lot because of my macbook pro /shrug ?
Damn. Ninja'd.TheScientificIssole said:
OT: White people can't dance/don't have rhythm.
Michael Jackson was an excellent dancer.
Also, to further make my point:Atheists don't believe in anything. NOTHING.
Yep. I don't believe in love, morality, art, air, the physical world, even my own existance.
None of it is real apparently.....or so I've been told by numerous people.
"wait, you don't believe in anything?" <--verbatim from people I've talked to
I said GOD not anything...GOD!!!!!
G-O-D does not spell anything.
Yep. I don't believe in love, morality, art, air, the physical world, even my own existance.
None of it is real apparently.....or so I've been told by numerous people.
"wait, you don't believe in anything?" <--verbatim from people I've talked to
I said GOD not anything...GOD!!!!!
G-O-D does not spell anything.
Every stereotype about Canadians baffles me. I have never found a real life example and I have been in Manitoba, Alberta, BC, Yukon, NWT, PEI, Newfoundland and Labrador , and Nova Scotia besides my Native Sasky. Where do these stereotypes live, when did they exist, why do we self deprecatingly reinforce stereotypes in our media if they may have never existed in the first place? The only place where I heard an authentic Canadian accent was a few people in Halifax but it ended there.Marter said:
Yes, but it's bullshit. It's one war. Have you seen how large the border is between Germany and France? Anyway, France were one of many countries occupied in the Blitzkrieg, and then there was the large scale resistance movement.DoPo said:
I don't believe in anything, but I still don't want to call myself an atheist. That's beacause to me, religion has to do with emotional attachment that defines one's bias. Rejection of those attachments is an attachment in of itself, and I consider myself to be too philosophical and introspective to join said rejection. So yeah, I don't feel comfortable belonging to a religious community, not even the atheist community. Wasting my energy upon yelling at religious people isn't really my thing.Don Savik said:
That's the core problem I have with Atheism, really. Verbal hostility towards emotional attachments, tends to make said attachments more binding to the people who hold them, no matter how true that hostility is. So it's not logic, reason or evidence you're lacking, it's kindness, honesty and subtlety.
In the end, resistance is harmful, but if an establishment is facing resistance, said establishment contains way too many errors. Never create anger.
But not as large scale as the French made it out to be. The Yugoslavians put up MUCH more of a fight, granted they had an advantage in terms of terrain.AnarchistFish said:
So yeah, the French are cowards stereotype is rubbish, but the old image of the heroic French Resistance is rather overstated.
Grape flavoured swishersweets totally floored me. Like someone went to Stereotype Town University to get their marketing degree, and made millions. I just need to invent grape flavoured bread and fried chicken flavoured bologna.krazykidd said:
I think that it has more to do with the type of dancing. Puritan Christianity had a very strong influence on Europe for a very long time. As a result white people tend to be exposed to rather "proper" styles of dancing in their cultures. Black and Latino culture have only relatively recently been infected by puritan ideals and rejected quite a bit of it as the culture of oppression. As a result I believe that the more sexually charged styles from traditional dance have survived in these cultures where it was more or less eradicated from white culture. The end product being that, regardless of skill, blacks and latinos simply tend to dance "sexier".
Totally pulled that out of my ass by the way.
I'm sure the gays who can't marry, the victims of Islamic extremism and honour killings, the Africans being told Condoms don't stop AIDS, and that girl forced to marry her rapist agree with you. If I never create anger, I submit my will to he who is willing to provide any disagreement with my positions. That's not moral. That's Moral cowardice. That's a refusal to stand up for a belief or a position, out of fear of angering someone.theSteamSupported said:
I'd be happy to anger people. I'd be happy to anger racists, neo-Nazis, mass-murderers, child-molesters, Christian fundamentalists, homophobes.
Religion is not emotional attachment that defines one's bias. That's a lot of effort to incorrectly define something. I'm emotionally attached to my dog, my car, my friends, and mushrooms, and these have nothing to do with scripture of any kind, or the acceptance of a God. Religion is nothing to do with emotional attachment. I could be considered a militant Atheist, but I have no issue with emotional attachment. That sounds more like a principal of Bhuddist philosophy to me. You can be emotionally attached to Religion, but that's something completely different. Religion is simply the acceptance and belief of certain dogma and philosophy, for most purposes.
An Atheist does not REJECT religion, as you seem to define rejection. He/She does not accept the concept that a God exists. That's it. That's not a rejection, as a belief that there is no God. An Atheist does believe there is no God, but that's not a position. If no-one suggested that a God or Gods exist, then everyone would be Atheist, yet they're not "Rejecting" a concept. If I said to you I was the reincarnation of Steve Jobs, would you consider it a rejection, and hence a belief, to disagree with me? Someone considering themself as thoughtful and insightful as yourself has surely heard of Sagan's dragon?
Not every concept has to be defined in terms of, accept/reject, but if you must, the scientific, the naturalistic view for unsupported hypothesis, is called the Null Hypothesis. Should a hypothesis present no evidence, it is assumed to be false. That's called being intellectually honest. Should a hypothesis of a God present evidence, it deserves consideration, but otherwise, it deserves dismissal. Not Rejection, since that would require Falsification, but dismissal.
Those who are hostile towards Religion, anti-religious types if you will, are often called "Militant Atheists". This is a political movement. That's the religion bashing stuff. This is a political extension of a philosophical position, and that's the one that may be considered negative by some overly tolerant individuals.
This is one of my favourite stereotypes, I used to subscribe to it. "Atheism is as bad as religion, because the belief that there is no God is also a belief about a God, and can't be proven." It's why we have the term "Agnostic" for religious beliefs. The word Agnostic means uncertain, in short. If I am Agnostic, I don't know. So I'd be an Agnostic Atheist. I don't know if there's a God, and I don't believe in one. I'm also an Agnostic Dragon-disbeliever, Unicorn-disbeliever, and 2012-Apocalypse-disbeliever. I don't know if something exists, so, in abcense of evidence, I assume disbelief. However, most people who say they're Agnostic, say they don't know if there's a God. Which means they're either a Theist (Accepts as fact the existance of a God), or an Atheist (Does not accept as fact the existance of a God). I can be an Agnostic Christian too. Most people considering themselves Agnostics, are probably Atheist, by strict definition.
I've never seen black people being portrayed as fried chicken and watermelon eating individuals, until I saw people dismissing it as stereotype.
Maybe it's because I don't live in America.
Maybe it's because I don't live in America.
First off, a disclaimer. I don't believe there's such a thing as stupidity. 'Stupidity' is really most of the time just lack of knowledge, a direct consequence from lack of communication. We're seven billion people on this planet, and during the course of history, we've been divided by oceans, forests and mountains. That has created isolation, and it's from here religion and bigotry has emerged. Maybe. Probably. Perhaps.
It's all just a hypothesis, really. Created by me, a non-expert. Take my words with a pinch of salt. And a professor.
2. I consider reincarnation a metaphysical phenomena, thus something that can't be tested by scientific method. Hence, you're both a reincarnation of Steve Jobs and not at the same time, but that basically doesn't mean anything on a physical level.
3. I think I know what you mean with Sagan's dragon, only I've heard an equivalent by Hawkins. H claimed there's a coffee mug floating in the asteroid belt, but it's impossible to prove or disprove his statement.
So yeah, you can say I'm a coward, but that's me just trying my best to be wise and careful. The problems with religion might not religion itself. Instead, they seem to have their roots deeply delved into the human psyche. That's what we really should be attacking, our human psyche. We need to question our desires and emotional positions, shaped for a bygone era.
It's all just a hypothesis, really. Created by me, a non-expert. Take my words with a pinch of salt. And a professor.
Just like you, I condemn all harm that has been applied on others for higher causes. We both want it to end as soon as possible. But do you seriously think it will stop if we get angry at them? Do you think those people will with logical thinking, question their beliefs they're backing up with raw emotions? If so, prove it.Loonyyy said:
Okay, sorry for not being entirely clear. I wasn't meant to say that religion equals emotional attachment, you're right about religion being a collection of dogmas. What I was trying to address, was faith, really. Faith is to me, an emotional attachment, so strong it's forming a bias that makes one ignore correct accusations.Loonyyy said:
1. There's a fine difference between saying "I believe there is no god" and "I lack belief there is a god". I prefer the second statement.Loonyyy said:
2. I consider reincarnation a metaphysical phenomena, thus something that can't be tested by scientific method. Hence, you're both a reincarnation of Steve Jobs and not at the same time, but that basically doesn't mean anything on a physical level.
3. I think I know what you mean with Sagan's dragon, only I've heard an equivalent by Hawkins. H claimed there's a coffee mug floating in the asteroid belt, but it's impossible to prove or disprove his statement.
What you're talking about is not dismissal, but scepticism. I am, like you, sceptic towards the concept of higher powers controlling nature and morality, but I'm still not dismissing it entirely. Maybe such powers exist, but not any form mankind has ever described or even can describe. Still, for as long as we find the true answer, the Null Hypothesis holds.Loonyyy said:
So yeah, you can say I'm a coward, but that's me just trying my best to be wise and careful. The problems with religion might not religion itself. Instead, they seem to have their roots deeply delved into the human psyche. That's what we really should be attacking, our human psyche. We need to question our desires and emotional positions, shaped for a bygone era.
That Australians "throw the shrimp on the barbie". I know it was in an old tourism ad but I have honestly no idea what the flying fuck it even means. I have never thrown a shrimp on a barbecue or seen anybody throw a shrimp onto a barbecue in my entire life of 19 years living in Australia, and no-one has ever used the term before or even since the ad, so... yeah. The bloody hell is that all about mate.
It is common knowledge that kangaroos definitely roam up and down main street Canberra and we all hunt crocodiles for a living with hunting knives strapped to our shins. All Australians are essentially slightly less polite versions of TF2's Sniper. This is pure, unadulterated fact; anyone who attests to the contrary is unpatriotic and provably wrong. Uh, mate.
It is common knowledge that kangaroos definitely roam up and down main street Canberra and we all hunt crocodiles for a living with hunting knives strapped to our shins. All Australians are essentially slightly less polite versions of TF2's Sniper. This is pure, unadulterated fact; anyone who attests to the contrary is unpatriotic and provably wrong. Uh, mate.
The American stereotype for the British, we are not posh wimps. The north of britain needs to be shown in america, some scary places there.