C-wod.com

Yea, exactly, I found it strange too.

does anyone besides myself refuse to see this movie…whenever hollywood attempts to cover a person’s life or a real person, they fail miserably (ali, beautiful mind, finding neverland, kinsey). Despite his shortcomings, only Taylor Hackford has attempted to make a decent biographical movie in Ray. Phoenix will most likely get the Oscar, which is a shame for Bill Murray who will get snubbed once again since the Academy gets an erection whenever someone portrays a famous person that is dead.

You are a scholar and a prophet, O Wise Shaka. It is true that every biographical movie ever, in the history of mankind, has been a complete and dismal failure when it comes to portraying the people we know and love so closely and dearly. I will join you in your refusal to see Mr. Hollywood’s movie, for all his flicks are shams. From now on, the Academy will have to pay for its own sensual pleasures - they’re not getting my money.

I don’t see why people would not want to give this movie a chance. Johnny Cash had a very interesting life and he is an American icon. You don’t want to know about his life and his impact on music? Well, suit yourself, but you are missing out.

Generalizations are bad, but stereotypes are okay? How does that work?

How about this? Both stereotypes and generalizations are bad.

Umm, I’m going to go with Chris and say stereotypes and generalizations are both stupid.

Your argument makes no sense Greg.

sheppard, you can’t read. stop pretending that you can.

Elaborating on my past remarks:

Greg, for some reason or another, you disaggregate generalizations and stereotypes.

"The difference between generalizations and stereotypes is that we mainly create generalizations in our mind. Whereas stereotpyes normally come from popular social observations."

Who came up with that definition?

From dictionary.com:

stereotype: 1: a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.

generalization: 1: the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances. 2: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles.

Generalization is a valid, if flawed, form of reasoning, for it uses induction to reach its conclusions. It could be said that stereotyping is generalization taken to an extreme, in the sense that, an isolated case is used to describe a group of people.

And don’t say, "stereotypes are based on popular social observations," because that’s absurd. Are you saying there’s substantial evidence to support claims that — to name a few stereotypes — most Asians own laundromats, most Polish people are stupid, most Irish are alcoholics, most blacks are good at basketball, etc. Rather, I would argue that these notions are promulgated by power structures, whether they be based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This is done to maintain what is, for them, a beneficial social order. For example, Catholic politicians were stigmatized for years with the belief that they were all papists. Similarly, the Nazis used the Jews as a scapegoat for their economic problems, because it was perceived that they had all the wealth in post-WW I Germany.

I’m sure you, as a resident of Garden City, don’t like being typecast as a WASP. Or, as a Republican, you’re not necessarily homophobic or a so-called "Bible-thumper." However, such stereotypes exist, and they’re clearly not accurate.

I would go on, but I feel like I’ve said too much already.

Nice try, trying to bore me into submission. I bet you thought you lost me by the generalization paragraph.

I never said that stereotypes were 100% accurate and I never said they should be used as a way of describing individuals. But to say that stereotypes are completely made up characteristics of a group is just being in denial.

Someone may say that since someone is Jewish, they are a democrat. This obviously is not true, and I would never assume someone’s political affiliation based off his or her religion/ethnicity etc. But if you look at the number of registered Jews, I’m fairly confident you’ll see that the vast majority of them are Democrats.

I think anyone that knows you is aware of your love for statistics. Some would go as far as saying that you are a "statistics whore." Well when you make any judgment calls based off your statistics you are thus using stereotypes.
e.g. All sport teams that Wodicka likes, suck.
I believe that you have said this many times. But this is obviously not true since you are a Notre Dame Fighting Irish fan. But if you took a random sample of the teams you liked what are the chances that predicting it to suck would be correct?
Knicks, Jets, Mets, Rangers, (even though as of now that’s not true) ND. Hmmm… Have I made my point yet?

Now you also questioned the legitimacy of some of these stereotypes. You go as far as saying that "power structures" are the cause of these beliefs. Whatever those are… True, some of present day’s stereotypes are outdated, yet are still brought up. And I would also say that subjective stereotypes should be completely avoided. But let’s take one of your examples into account: most Asians own laundromats.

Of the 3 laundromats that I know of in my area, all 3 of them are run by Asians. what what?!

Next you tried to use stereotypes that I would normally fit to what? Make me angry? Yes, people would assume all of those things about me. And would they be accurate? No. But as I said, " …but are sometimes accurate." Sometimes is not a universal word. Sometimes does not mean always.

Let me make it clear that I am not supporting the USE of stereotypes, because it seems that everyone thinks I do. I’m simply saying that stereotypes are often fairly correlated to statistical trends, and are not completely made-up.

O, I almost forgot, aren’t we talking about Walk The Line here?

Don’t foget Weezer, the Strokes, and the Mets

Yankees own the Mets.
I still maintain that Weezer, while good, isn’t the best band <i>ever</i>.
And The Strokes are horrid.