Late but here’s my model of the situation. Sort of a WIP and very new but a /gen effortpost, so I welcome thoughts:

It’s individualism versus collectivism. The collectivist understands intimately the function of working together for the protection and future of the group. There is no doubt in her mind about the practical nature of her actions because she can see them play out in her community. The individualist, by contrast, operates solo; everything for him is about your vote, your candidate. This leads to a divide between the individualist and the material outcomes of his actions. This gap—this absence of practicality, we might call it—leaves a vacuum where symbolism can enter. This becomes a problem not when symbolism is simply encountered by the individualist, but when the symbol becomes the act, when the vote becomes a kind of personal expression, and any thought for collective consequences falls by the wayside.

“Ordinarily,” if we imagine such a thing exists, these two identities intermix and act in a complex and altogether non-problematic way; I don’t wish to imply that individualism is simply “bad” while collective action is “good.” For example, concepts of individualism are fundamental to advancing human rights to consent and bodily autonomy.

However, the setting and background of your question is the USA, a country with deep, deep historical ties to white supremacist, capitalist, colonialist, even fascist values, all of which hold the individual as intrinsic over the collective. The result is that hyperindividualism is catastrophically rooted in the heart of U.S. society—even in progressive and leftist spaces!

So, when you see a pro-Palestinian proclaim abstention or that they voted third party, you are witnessing the complex outcome of genuine compassion intermingled with the values instilled by white supremacy and individualism. And so you hear the phrase, “I just can’t in good conscience vote for XYZ.” To degrees varying between people, the vote loses its material value and becomes nothing more than a symbolic moral statement.

This doesn’t mean the leftist non-voter is a white supremacist, of course! Rather, it’s that they have been deeply affected by the presence of those values in their cultural context and have not yet had the opportunity or experience with group frameworks to question their assumptions and reassert the significant importance of collectivism.

So, in conclusion, the unnuanced TLDR is “because America is a racist capitalist hellhole.” The good news I conclude from this, though, is that collectivism can be learned and promoted. Cultural values are definitely not static, and perhaps with education, support, and time, mindsets among leftists can be shifted to better support the whole of the community.

OP asked for a steelman but good try

ah my bad. don’t have an answer to that question at this time.

i mean i’ve been ignoring Biden’s garbage capitulation to the false framing that immigrants are doing crime and rapes en masse and that this is a serious concern.

i’m gonna ignore it into the future but i’ve been ignoring it too.

article author is tragically misinformed, everyone knows it’s wiiings that redbull gives you

1 bread

also real life doesn’t usually have unsquare rugs or gas pumps indoors

ai

donald trump if he was a horned ram

there isn’t even a joke here lmao it’s just some pretty lukewarm concept associations

it’s not being downplayed dawg it’s the media doing due diligence. this was breaking news at the time they have to wait till, usually multiple, reports verify the story.

i can hear this gif

Love this explanation, thank you!

And some of the determinants of what makes valid- versus over-application are knowledge, cognition and time.

• I don’t have training in foraging, so without that knowledge I use stereotypes to avoid danger
• Children have lower cognition, so we tell them to stereotype that all strangers are dangerous until they are older
• A woman walking alone at night may not have time to examine her biases, and so uses stereotypes to keep herself safe

I am interested to know if there are other determinants as well. :)

excellent breakdown 🙂

🙌🙌 poignant advice

I actually often see drivers smile and wave at me, disproving that they are unaware, and nevertheless I do not adjust my beliefs in the context of maximizing my road safety as a pedestrian.

Woo the first real answer that just doesn’t argue with my semantics, and also really well written!

Yes, and I think the context, as you emphasize, is so key here. In situations that are vulnerable to the point of being time sensitive, interrogating one’s biases is absolutely valid to do later (or even better, before).

I am noticing a pattern in (what I consider to be) the real answers in that they mostly apply in situations where cognition is limited in some sense. Children have limited cognition so we tell them “stranger danger” and “cars can’t see you.” But, as we know from your example, cognition can also be limited by time which means that gut instincts and stereotypes often apply in dangerous situations as well.

Thanks for your comment!

“Don’t eat red berries, many red berries signify poison”.

The subject of the stereotype (red berries) even in your own example is still kept within its normal context (consumption). I will be keeping my own original understanding of “stereotype” for this reason. :)

The statement “a stereotype can never be constructive because it will always involve the need to be restrictive and limiting in order to be a stereotype” suggests that stereotypes inherently confine individuals to a set of predetermined traits, limiting their full and diverse expression.

However, stereotypes can be context-dependent and their restrictiveness can vary. For instance, in some contexts, certain conservatives might falsely believe that exposure to trans identities manipulates people into becoming trans, which is a restrictive stereotype. Yet, in other contexts, these same individuals may engage with trans identities through media consumption (fetishization; pornography), which contradicts the initial stereotype.

This example demonstrates that stereotypes can shift and are not universally restrictive. The fluidity of stereotypes based on context suggests that while they often limit and confine, their impact can vary, revealing a more complex and sometimes contradictory nature.

As far as the car example, of course the graffiti tagger is no longer going to hold the same stereotype true when they cease pedestrian activities—because the context has changed.

I like this enough, as long as you make the genuine effort to identify when you are shown otherwise :) I was thinking the same—I usually am very wary of every unfamiliar email or phone call as phishing or scam until given counter evidence.