- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 28,690
- Reaction score
- 15,293
That's awesome, and I think that's what a lot of it really comes down to. People just don't have a lot of exposure to other types of people.
9 times out of 10, If you meet a guy outside of your group, hang around him a bit, you end up seeing he's just a guy, and not this crazy image or stereotype that's been built up in your head.
But it can be hard for people to break these stereotypes they have in their head when it's the only thing that they have for reference. We end up looking at people as just groups and labels, and through the lens of political narratives, and not as just people. And people begin to see themselves through these labels and narratives as well.
Considering your work history, while I don't always agree with some of your takes(or maybe it's the points that you prioritize), I do get where you're coming from. Demonizing groups and making very broad generalizations, oversimplifications, and using extreme language or concepts is rarely helpful, and usually just hurts whatever goal that's being worked for.
I think that as humans, we have it built into our dna to quickly categorize people into groups that are generic so we can quickly identify those different from us and try to determine friend or foe. It was probably useful a long time ago when people would determine if it was someone from their tribe or a possible threat. I don’t really know, but that’s my theory ans I don’t know if that is backed up anywhere. But I think we all still do it. You are alone and see three men walking towards you and you instantly note gait,body language, clothing style, the set of his eyes, race, and other factors to determine if they are a threat. I do it absolutely with every person I see. Maybe that is the lingering cop in me, but just being honest.