Moderate Muslims, everybody.

And of course, Ricky Retardo disagrees -- but he disagrees via rep because the fact is that he has zero reason to disagree beyond his personal confirmation bias. He knows he can't give any reason for disagreement except that it offends the bias implanted by his puppet masters. He can't actually articulate his disagreement with that point because the disagreement with it is not his own. He's not thought about it, himself. He just knows he should object, but doesn't know why.

Gul, if you disagree, propose an alternate origin for stereotypes. Do a bunch of old white men get together in Geneva and invent them, then -- somehow -- maybe through black magic? -- get minorities to comply with these invented stereotypes?

Hey, I'm meeting you halfway here. Just for you, I'm saying "Fuck parsimony!" and excluding the answer with the lowest count of extraneous variables -- just for you.

So tell us, who's at these "invent stereotypes" meetings, and where are they held?

When viewing a post that is 100% wrong, a red X is often sufficient. If you want something more than that, I already gave it to you. You, of course, being you, decided to both ignore it in your response, and then blatantly engage in the falsehood I had already pointed out about stereotypes. You couldn't have done any better at making my point. Congratulations!

I disagree because you are, as usual, making claims that are utterly cretinous. Stereotypes are predominantly true and statistical medians? So Jews are greedy, blacks are lazy, blondes are stupid. Really?

You can take my drive-by as evidence of inability to compete with your intellect if it fits with your self-image if you wish, but that isn't it. Now, back to ignoring you.

Let's go with your first answer: Invented.

Who invents them? Where? When? Is there a convention? Inventastereotypeicon? Where's that held at?

But, naturally, you're satisfied to claim that they're "cretinous" but have absolutely zero intention (or ability) to demonstrate why you think so.

See, you say "cretinous" -- what you should say is, "offensive." Because it's true, they are offensive. But they're not cretinous. They're factual. That's why you didn't even (and won't in the future even) bother to try to dispute them with any facts. Because there are no facts which counter them.

Stereotypes arise from observation.

Artificial in what way?

Irrelevant question that does not require an answer. Who invents does not matter and is varied. Why they are invented, and why fools believe them, that's the issue.

Who said a fucking thing about skin tone other than you?

Because that belief isn't just a single belief but a belief system. It mandates acceptance of a shitload of other beliefs and behaviors.

Except that acceptance of that belief system is a common action, and the belief system subscribed to mandates other actions. We know what those actions are, which is why we do know the kind of actions to expect.

How very convenient. Provide an answer anyway.

That is not sufficient. You don't get to cop out and have it count in your favor. If you cop out, you forfeit. You lose. You want to paint a forfeit as a victory? Tough shit. Not happening.

Bullshit. Nobody invents stereotypes. You want to claim that they're whole cloth inventions, you have to prove it.

They arise naturally, organically, from long term observation. That's my theory. My theory depends only upon the mechanism of observation. Yours -- that they are invented and then -- for no reason at all -- minorities start behaving in accordance with these inventions, against their genuine nature -- violates the principle of Parsimony.

And look at 'em, kids. Look at 'em. They have no more objections with enough substance for those objections to be put into words. All they've got are neg reps, which give no explanation, no rationale. They have no reason to object, anymore, all they have is the ideological impetus for objection. That's what those reputation-based objections tell you. They don't like what I said, but they have no counter to it.

Casual observation of what, if not of reality? Casual observation of what?

You think that "black" is an artificial category? How many blacks do you think agree with you on that?

And that means what, effectively?

Wrong. I am predicting actions based on beliefs those people have assigned to themselves, as indicated by their actions based on those beliefs.

Of the shapes that you bring along in order to imprint them unto the world around you. As in stereo-type printing. Then you point at the printed pieces of paper and cry: Why, look at all these shapes! They're all the same, and my printing plate fits them so perfectly -- it must be true! It wouldn't exist if it weren't true, you know.

Really? Find a sizable contingent of Muslims who don't believe in Shari'ah law, then. G'head. Any population of Muslims ya like.

Most of my neighbors. But that's not the point; even if they did believe in shariah, that wouldn't demonstrate that stereotypes are true. It would either fit contingently, or by a rule, and if there's a valid rule, it isn't a stereotype.

Yeah, actually, it would. For you to claim that it wouldn't only demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea of what Shari'ah is. It is the definition of theocracy. Everything the American left accuses Christians of, in the absolutely deepest, darkest depths of their most extreme paranoia? That's what Shari'ah is. So yes, you absolutely should regard your Shari'ah compliant Muslims neighbors as a danger, because nobody who adheres to that kind of oppressive shit is content to let their neighbor be free of it.

Then what would? If you want me to take your position on this at all seriously, then you have to have a threshold somewhere at which I become right. Otherwise, I'm calling fuckin' bullshit on your pretense of having any threshold at all.

No, I really don't have to entertain invalid questions. And I fully realize it takes away your one tool.

And likewise, I have no requirement for entertaining your intentional misrepresentations. Nobody but you has said that minorities would begin to follow the stereotype. Your statement is devoid of purpose beyond trying to escape the trap you're in, but nobody is going to fall for that. You believe all stereotypes are valid because all are based on actual behavior of the group. That means you believe blacks are lazy, Germans are NAZIs, and atheists are evil. You also believe that libertarians are selfish crybabies.

Yeah, you really do have to entertain questions, because you really don't get to arbitrarily declare my position invalid with exactly zero logical or evidentiary support. I'm sure it works differently in Bwooooooosten, but this is the real world, kid.

It really doesn't, not when all you do is declare them to be invalid without providing any reason for that declaration.

Actually, you do have exactly that requirement, but only insofar as you want to validate your position.

I should and do indeed consider any Muslims that consider shariah valid profane law as a danger, just as I do anyone who believes in the laws of the Old Testament as the law of the land. But none of that has anything to do with your claim that stereotypes are true.

As many others have said, if all blacks were lazy, and all blondes were dumb, that would be a start to at least lend minimal plausibility to your claim. (It would still remain analytically false, of course, but at least that would be purely a problem of terminology.)

Then I'll extend to you the same challenge I extended to Gul: Explain where stereotypes originate from.

I already explained myself, so no, no need to repeat, especially since I don't expect different results. As for the real world? You don't know fuck about that, but here's a hint, you'd have been shown the door a long time ago in pretty much any real world setting you care to invent. So keep it up, see how long it takes for you to find reality. I persuaded others to cut you some slack, might be time to revisit that discussion.

Psychology today article

... That stereotype accuracy -- the correspondence of stereotype beliefs with criteria -- is one of the largest relationships in all of social psychology. The correlations of stereotypes with criteria range from .4 to over .9, and average almost .8 for cultural stereotypes (the correlation of beliefs that are widely shared with criteria) and.5 for personal stereotypes (the correlation of one individual's stereotypes with criteria, averaged over lots of individuals). The average effect in social psychology is about .20. Stereotypes are more valid than most social psychological hypotheses.

Which raises a question: Why do so many psychologists emphasize stereotype inaccuracy when the evidence so clearly provides evidence of such high accuracy? Why is there this Extraordinary Scientific Delusion?

There may be many explanations, but one that fits well is the leftward lean of most psychologists. If we can self-righteously rail against other people's inaccurate stereotypes, we cast ourselves as good, decent egalitarians fighting the good fight, siding with the oppressed against their oppressors. Furthermore, as Jon Haidt has repeatedly shown, ideology blinds people to facts that are right under their noses. Liberal social scientists often have assumed stereotypes were inaccurate without bothering to test for inaccuracy, and, when the evidence has been right under their noses, they have avoided looking at it. And when something happens where they can't avoid looking at it, they have denigrated its importance. Which is, in some ways, very amusing -- if, after 100 years of proclaiming the inaccuracy of stereotypes to the world, can we really just say "Never mind, it's not that important" after the evidence comes in showing that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest relationships in all of social psychology?

There are a whole lot of interesting academic studies out there.

gul has long since answered that.

Oooooh. Look at my boots. See how they're quakin'.

No, really. Get right down there. Y'know, maybe it's not visible, the quaking of my boots.

Maybe you need to feel it. But it might be subtle. Fingertips won't do. You'll need something more sensitive.

Maybe your nose? No, that's not convenient.

Maybe you lips. Yeah.

Get your lips on my boots, and tell me if you feel 'em quaking.

G'head. Get your lips all over my boots.

No? Lips not sensitive enough? Well, try your tongue.

Lick my boots, and tell me if I give a shit about your pansy fucking threat, cunt.