Yeah, I think that's what he meant too. It just came out funny, ya know?

Like - one definition of a stereotype is assuming something of someone because of one of their traits.

I think his disclaimer meant that he wasn't saying, "She doesn't have a father because she's black."

But at the same time he said that anybody who acts that way must not have a father in their life, which is, in and of itself, a stereotype.

Didn't offend me or anything. It just made me laugh, because it was one of those strange things that could be interpreted in two different entirely contradictory ways...

...such as "no," or "don't do that to me when I'm sleeping or I'll call the police."

Agreed and agreed

I've referred to this (and have heard educators refer to it as) a sense of entitlement. There is a lack of understanding the process of working to earn something. The people with this mentality don't value the things they have. If someone doesn't work for something to earn it, that thing has less value. The prime example of this idea is Paris Hilton.

Well done!

Yeah, I just gave up on trying to clarify which part was the stereotype too.

I consider a stereotype to be an uninformed opinion based strictly on appearance.

Drawing a conclusion based on someone's behavior is not what I would consider a stereotype, but I guess that's open for interpretation.

I disagree with this on the Paris Hilton example. She is a tart, a rich tart who wants to be famous. Afterall why be rich if you can't be famous? I SERIOUSLY doubt that she doesn't realize the value her wealth, if you understand the POWER wealth allows than you understand the value. What some people in her generations (and arguably her parent's and grandparent's generation) miss is the responsibility bestowed with the wealth. First generation people who made their wealth off of people who have faces and families, rather than buildings full of disposable numbered workers, understand the RESPONSIBILITY they have to the people who put their labor into elevating them to their status and power. Just because you were born into a position of wealth and power does not mean you don't value what you have. It is a tougher proposition to teach a person born in this circumstance, that they have the yoke of responsibility as a balance to the power their wealth conveys.

Blurmore rocks

There are some nice performances on youtube that look completely real and frightening, this might have been one of them.

yoo rock 2 :P

I dont agree. It would be nice if what you said was true. First generation people who made their wealth are not nice people. Being nice is a big drawback when someone is about to build wealth. They are never nice when it does not serve their financial interests. Some of them turn nice when the empire has been built. Most of them don't. This is my biased feeling about wealthsmiths.

In the Paris Hilton case, whether or not she realises her worth, value, power and degrees of separation from the average person is irrelevant.

It's how others perceive her that matters here, and those that look up to her as a role model simply see someone fabulously wealthy who hasn't had to work for it.

Not to sidetrack this thread into something completely off-topic and political but...
Nice and responsible are two very different things. True most coal, oil and chemical barons have a bad reputation of exploiting people on the way up, and big pay outs to legacy foundations and philanthropy after their wealth was made. Other industrial barons had their own bad apples. Henry Ford was notoriously nasty, and anti union. But he was responsible for the 40 hour work week and minimum wage. He realized the benefit of having hard working highly skilled labor, and made sure that those workers were paid, and happy enough to stay. He also invaded their lives with a sort of social police that would root out and antagonize drinkers, womanizers, and gamblers, so yeah he was a little overboard. He was believer in welfare capitalism, if you were willing to come to work, he was willing to take care of you. Even the service industries of the 30-50's took very good care of their people. My great aunt worked for the B&O railroad and retired from the company and became a pensioner at the age of 65 and a childless widow soon after, she lived until she was 100 on her RR pension, without mortgaging her house or going into debt.

Yeah, but back then there were a country called Soviet Union. It scared the hell out of the leaders in the US (and west European) industries. They did not want the country to go left. There is no such danger now. I think this will put an end to any sense of "welfare" in them.

On a lighter note...

Suppose that this young lady is typical of her generation. And, judging by the comments in this thread, our children will be the mature/intelligent minority in this brave new world of tomorrow. Therefore, it may be safe to say that THE CHILDREN OF PLIME WILL RULE THE WORLD. Bwa ha ha ha ha!

My children will be your children's lawyers.

Losers!

ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY PLIME!

Remember when "They" said rock&roll was the end of the world? Elvis swinging his hips was the end of time as we know it...Haight Ashbury, Drugs, free love, gays. Every generation has their book burning time...sharks in Florida? How will we ever cope as the top of the food chain???...................Global warming!!! Welcome to the new nightmare.

Haha, the sad part is that the new nightmare is just the human race!

Bahaha, I couldn't agree with you more. There's always a problem with "Today's generation". Maybe it's just that people are stupid in general?