Another Kumbaya article.

Human being use stereotypes to think, Peter Gibilisco. Every human being forms generalities in order to conceptualise. Saying that people should not stereotype because their stereotype may be wrong, is exactly like saying that people should not think because their thinking may be wrong. The argument against stereotyping is the most idiotic ever invented. Trendy lefties love it because it makes them sound oh, so ferking intelligent, when all it is doing is displaying their ignorance and stupidity.

I see that you are of Italian extraction. If I were to say that Italians have a flair for design, you would probably agree. If I were to say that Chinese are very studious, you would also have to agree. But the negative stereotypes that you have submitted you say are wrong. What you are really saying is that it is OK to say something nice about an entire groups of people, but you must not say anything bad about groups of people. Such a position is intellectually insupportable.

People do judge entire groups of people by their group attitudes and behaviours, and that is an everyday event. I am sure that you are not going to invite the Comancheros motor cycle club to your next birthday bash because you know what these characters are like. Since you are an anti racist, you probably don't like Ku Klux Klan members or Nazis because of your negative stereotype of these two groups of people.

As for "hate speech", don't make me laugh. If "hate speech" is the means by which entire races are made to feel ashamed of themselves, then why is it that the people who invented the so called "stolen generations" were not prosecuted under 18C? The rule of thumb is that every non white minority is protected by 18C, but you can slander white north Europeans to your hearts content while the motley collection of state Human Rights organisations look the other way.

With multiculturalism a proven failure everywhere, it amazes me that some people like Peter Gibilisco are still true believers who dream the impossible dream

Go Lego. After-all, how many taxi drivers do we need?

I read the list of examples and wondered how often such examples are actually used, especially with the "All" aspect. Generalisation is an important part of how functional humans are able to operate without continuously bogging down in a quagmire of detail investigation. Most are able to recognise that those are generalisations and don't apply to all, that they are at best a trigger for some extra focus on some aspect of an issue.

In regard to your example stereotype about muslims. My impression is that very few would believe that all muslims are terrorists, a number make the point (often in a very abreviated manner) that the sacred writings of that belief system clearly hold teachings that are a threat to others including teachings that could be defined as terrorist. That point can and has been demonstrated by highlighting verses from those writings. The claim that all muslims are terrorists can and should be rejected, highlighting the risks around calls to violence within the sacred writings of a belief system is not.

R0bert

I watched an Australian made doco, which was centred on racial discrimination directed at Indians.

As we went around with the bus, our Indian guests were shocked and highly critical of bikini babes showing so much flesh, and were relatively uninhibited in expressing their serious disapproval!

Then in the third or forth episode, we came across a particularly offense racially specific sign or graffiti.

As we followed the Indians off the bus and stood around the sign discussing just how offensive it was and their reaction, the group were accosted by a load-mouthed lout, of middle eastern appearance, screaming obscenities, and demanding the Indians go home.

And possibly fueled as hate speech by the tensions, between an Islamic Pakistan, and the world's largest democracy, India!

I can't for the life of me, see anything but civil unrest between people diametrically opposed to everything we believe in, or stand for and us!

Nor do I see a responsibility placed on us to change social norms and mores, to suit those coming here.

If it was better where you came from go back!

We welcomed the Greeks and Italians, who also saw us as a weird mob, but nonetheless, adjusted to our ways.

When in Rome do as Rome does.

And nothing is served by peopled bringing all the issues that forced them to migrate here, with them when they resettle.

Nor are we served by allowing people coming here to create ghettos that then continue to perpetuate the divide or clash of cultures.

The dominant culture should win out, and to date has, as second and third generations present.

Even so, there will always be racists in our midst, be they white supremacists, or or others with stone age beliefs!

And our own idea of free speech includes as it must, the right to offend, which is sometimes the inevitable result of straight shooting!

If it was better or more preferable elsewhere, go there, and leave us alone to get on with it and the nation building that coalesces; rather than that which invariably divides us!