OP was not slandering a country, but thought he might be, so added the word “stereotypical”–thus implying that the grounds for his question were, well, questionable, and not in a good GQ way but implying social animus, which is a no-no here.
zoid accepts the self-deprecatory gambit and invalidates it, further validating it in a way.
Neither is necessary.
The question is valid and in itself has as much merit as any, in that it answerable, has been answered, and worth repeatedly asking.
A similar “thread” question, without hemming or hawing by poster and accusations of animus–and with weightier attention given to it by weightier people than most net readers and even GQ posters–is asked and monitored regularly in Sicily. The Italian national government no doubt is interested, and presumably is not interested in slandering itself. Even paragons on international virtue among US national agencies promoting public interaction assume someone is “posting threads” on that.
The situation differs were an ostensibly similar, “rational” question were to be posed in a post entitled:
“Fun questions about stereotypical Jewish/Zionist control of the Federal Reserve and how it affects the consumer”
Of course the hedge (and actually the second hedge of “fun”) implies that the following noun-group may be not true.
But the number of people who would post that question with such wording and intent as OP, is, as we and I assume GQ moderators are aware, minuscule. In fact, the opposite is true, and, for unique reasons, will continue to be true. A zoid-like response here would then be in order, to say the least.