LEGO,

<<Not if they are rednecks, according to your stereotype.>>

Incorrect.

"To be a stereotype, [“rednecks”] would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

<<…you have negatively classified every individual member of that group by their group association. And you can't see that as stereotyping?>>

"...if the [negative classification] doesn’t fit an individual, then the label automatically doesn’t apply [as far as I'm concerned]. How can a classification of person, include people who do not fit that classification?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

<<…you think that all stereotypes are inaccurate, and therefore wrong..>>

To some degree or another, yes.

<<If all stereotypes are wrong, then all thinking is wrong.>>

No, because not all thinking is done in stereotypes. Stereotypes are mental shortcuts that are not always taken.

"...there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317623)

<<…you can stereotype sporting shooters accurately as simply "people who like guns".>>

No, not “accurately”. Because sporting shooters are never simply (i.e. ‘merely’ or ‘just’ (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/simply)) "people who like guns".

<<The term "redneck" is now used everywhere, and applies more to attitudes than where somebody lives.>>

I'd agree with that. Luckily the definitions mention more than just location to account for this.

<<You classified people into two categories with different qualities.>>

Correct.

<<One group is "intelligent," and knows how to prejudge correctly, The other group are "simple folk" who do not, know how to prejudge correctly.>>

Incorrect. I didn’t say that at all. Here’s what I actually said:

“…intelligent people are able to look past they’re pre-judgements. Simpler folk stop at them.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317986)

<<Yet you have no qualms at all about how "hurtful" your stereotype is towards the Simpletons that you negatively classified>>

Obviously, in that context, a person, dumb or smart, is what I’m classifying as “intelligent” if they’re able to look past their prejudices.

I’m sorry you didn’t make the cut.

AJ "To be a stereotype, [“rednecks”] would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation.")

LEGO Oxford defined "rednecks", and you agreed with that definition. When you use that definition to form a concept of a redneck, that becomes your stereotype of a redneck.

AJ "...if the [negative classification] doesn’t fit an individual, then the label automatically doesn’t apply [as far as I'm concerned].

LEGO Oxford attributed "reactionary views" as a defined characteristic of all rednecks. You agreed with that definition. You even claimed that this characteristic was not a stereotype because all rednecks held reactionary views. Your presumption was, that stereotypes are always wrong. So, if a common characteristic existed, then it could not be a stereotype. That presumption was wrong. Stereotypes can be accurate.

AJ No, because not all thinking is done in stereotypes. Stereotypes are mental shortcuts that are not always taken.

LEGO So, I say that there is "a flock of birds is sitting on a car."

You say, "There is an unspecified number of endothermatic (warm blooded) creatures characterised by having a beak with no teeth, the laying of hard shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, who generally have the ability to fly, resting with legs folded and their hindquarters on the ground, on a road vehicle, which has generally four wheels, and which is generally powered by an internal combustion engine, which can carry an unspecified number of people."

In order to think about concepts like groups of people, animals, collective nouns, verbs and objects, you quite obviously need to quickly form concepts about what they all are in your mind. You do that by creating simple stereotypes of what you need to think about.

AJ "...there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations."

LEGO You can"t even express a simple situation like "a flock of birds is sitting on a car" without stereotyping. How the hell can you figure out a complex one without doing it?

LEGO,

Well, you think you know more about criminology than criminologists. I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that you think you know more about the English language than Oxford.

<<Oxford defined "rednecks", and you agreed with that definition.>>

Did I have much of a choice? If it were defined differently, then I would have to agree with that instead since I am not an expert on the English language.

<<When you use that definition to form a concept of a redneck, that becomes your stereotype of a redneck.>>

No, it doesn’t.

"To be a stereotype, a definition would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

<<Oxford attributed "reactionary views" as a defined characteristic of all rednecks.>>

Actually, that was my paraphrasing. Oxford say especially those with reactionary views.

<<You even claimed that this characteristic was not a stereotype because all rednecks held reactionary views.>>

No, I said they’re probably not rednecks.

"...if they don’t have politically reactionary views, then they’re probably not rednecks." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317776)

<<Your presumption was, that stereotypes are always wrong.>>

And still is - when applied indiscriminately to a class of people.

<<So, if a common characteristic existed, then it could not be a stereotype.>>

Correct.

<<That presumption was wrong. Stereotypes can be accurate.>>

How so? Your last ‘sporting shooter’ example flopped.

<<So, I say that there is "a flock of birds is sitting on a car." You say, "There is an unspecified number of endothermatic (warm blooded) creatures characterised by … etc.>>

No. You’re confusing concepts with stereotypes again.

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

Concept:
An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/concept)

<<How the hell can you figure out a complex [situation] without [stereotyping]?>>

Use concepts instead.

LEGO,

Since this is apparently so difficult for you, let me do a breakdown of where you’re going wrong and why.

From what I can tell, you identify first and foremost as a racist. This identity is important to you and in order to justify it, you overlook the immense harm that can come from stereotyping. In order to ignore just how destructive stereotyping is, you confuse ‘concepts’ and ‘stereotypes’ to convince yourself that, not only does everyone stereotype, but that it is impossible to think without doing so, and, therefore, in doing so, you are apparently absolved of any wrong doing - according to your logic. And with no regard whatsoever to the differing levels of harm between different stereotypes, too, I might add.

With a conscious effort, it is possible to think beyond stereotypes and even bypass them altogether, but even if it weren't, appealing to this would be both the Appeal to Nature fallacy and the Appeal to Common Practice fallacy, if you were to argue that stereotyping was thusly either good or right.

On another note, Joe asked a good question before. He asked, “Who gives a toss [about what we are discussing]?” The answer to that, of course, is that you give a toss because of what I’ve pointed out above.

I too will freely admit that I give a toss as well, and that’s because you have dangerously stupid opinions that need to be fought at every opportunity. Unfortunately, everyone else on this forum is too mature to entertain your crap to the extent that I am, and so you get to run around and claim victory because you assume that those who have the final word are the winners of debates (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317490).

And that, my friend, is why I’m not leaving. This is never going to end for you, LEGO. This topic goes to the heart of your entire worldview, and so I would like to be able to link to this thread every time you make the same silly justification for your dangerously ignorant opinions in the future.

Twenty years ago, I became interested in learning how people think. I was not looking for any academic justification of my social or political ideas, it was just my usual thirst for knowledge. I purchased a bunch of very expensive university text books on Psychology and Sociology and read them all. Psychologists explained how people think by simplifying complex ideas about objects, people, and situations, by forming stereotypes of those ideas, blending them together, and using them to think, or speak. And when you think about it, of course they are right. 2+2 equals 4.

Then along comes a bunch of ideologues who claim that everybody is equal, and they say that you must not prejudge, label, or stereotype any group of people to prove they are not equal. That's funny that is. Because they are saying that you must not think. Because if you do think, of course you will come to the conclusion that people are not equal.

Then along comes an acolyte like your good self, who simply parrots this idiotic mantra that people must not think. My task therefore, is to make you think and see the obvious. That saying you should not prejudge, label and stereotype means that you should not think. That should be easy. After all, 2+2 equals 4. Unfortunately, after debating against Creationists, I have learned that many Idealists will refuse to make even the simplest and most screamingly obvious connections that violate their faith in their ideology. They get angry and insult, they stonewall, they prevaricate, and they muddy the water till the cows come home.

This concept has fascinated me. History has displayed example after example of people making the most idiotic and catastrophic decisions because they hold ideology to be more important than reality. I think that one reason why the North Europeans began to think straight before every other culture, was because we were always at war with each other. In war, the guys that think straight usually win. While the ones who rely on ideology, astrology, God, or obsolete preconceived ideas, usually lose

AJ Well, you think you know more about criminology than criminologists. I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that you think you know more about the English language than Oxford.

LEGO Stereotypical academic arrogance. The same arrogance that the Royal Society used to deny a village carpenter named John Harrison his acclaim for solving longitude.

When you use that definition to form a concept of a redneck, that becomes your stereotype of a redneck.

AJ No, it doesn’t.

LEGO According to Oxford, the word "redneck" is defined by "a politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US." Instead of writing or speaking, about "politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US", (which would be a real mouthful) you simplify it into a stereotypical concept of that definition. Therefore, the term "redneck" is the stereotype of a "politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US."

Your presumption was, that stereotypes are always wrong.

AJ And still is - when applied indiscriminately to a class of people.

You are saying that you can not judge individuals by their group membership. Are you going to invite individuals from the Comanchero Motorcycle Club over to your next party? Would you invite individuals who are members of HAMAS to a Bar Mitva? Would you allow individual members of a class of people known as "paedophiles" to run a day care centre? Or would you form a judgement of the individuals by their group association? "Know them by the company they keep".....Jesus Christ.

How the hell can you figure out a complex [situation] without [stereotyping]?

AJ Use concepts instead.

Stereotypes are used to create concepts.

AJ From what I can tell, you identify first and foremost as a racist. This identity is important to you and in order to justify it, you overlook the immense harm that can come from stereotyping.

LEGO. No, like any person with any claim to any intelligence at all, I live by the ideal that "the truth should be told, though the heavens may fall."