There is absolutely no example, none at all, that would not spark the very condemnation that was the subject of the OP.
Q: Why do Black people like watermelon?
A: The same reason everyone else does!
Then can you at least answer my other question?
It’s very difficult to debate if you don’t describe what you want to discuss or why you want to discuss it.
There could be some value in it if you’re trying to figure out the origins of a stereotype. i.e. How did it get started in the first place?
Maybe, but that doesn’t really square with the OP’s question of how to “point out the one tiny nugget of truth.” I’m interested to hear Lumpy’s goal, otherwise we’re just debating a strawman.
Assuming there’s a debate here in the first place, which is looking less likely.
“Even a stopped clock is right twice a day! and “Even a blind squirrel can sometimes find a nut” “Hitler loved dogs”, etc etc
What does this mean? “Is a stereotype” and “is true” are orthogonal concepts. It’s a stereotype to say that adults are taller than children. It’s also true, even if there are exceptions.
A stereotype can be both true and only apply to a tiny fraction of the population. It’s true that Black people are better basketball players than whites, as seen in the NBA example. It’s also true that the vast majority of people of any race are nowhere near professional skill.
This is the key. If you just want to point out some factual “nugget of truth”, of whatever size, it’s usually quite possible to do that in an accurate way, without appearing to endorse any bigoted stereotypes.
E.g., “Over two-thirds of all NBA players are Black.” “Women are very underrepresented among offshore oil-rig workers in the North Sea, making up less than 5% of the workforce.” “Several of the major US investment banking firms were founded by German Jewish immigrants.”
There’s no need to spin off from those uncontroversial facts into stereotype generalizations like “Blacks are naturally better at basketball” or “Women don’t want to do dirty strenuous jobs like oil-rig laborer” or “Jews control the banks”.
The specific facts don’t intrinsically explain, justify or validate the stereotypes, even if superficially they may seem to align with the stereotypes. It sounds like the OP’s discourse problem here is that he’s trying to treat this kind of superficial alignment as a form of “limited and qualified” empirical validation of a stereotype, and the evidence doesn’t actually support that.
I’m sure you know that almost all liberals are not like that.
This is only useful for a narrow slice of target audiences (which admittedly, covers the SDMB pretty well). People that are further out on the spectrum will say you’re dogwhistling no matter how carefully you phrase things. But those without that particular strain of neuroticism will interpret even stereotypes in the manner in which the statements were made (i.e, you can just say “Black people are better at basketball” without having to carefully couch it in terms of representation or whatever). And of course some segments of the population don’t care at all if you’re stereotyping.
Which isn’t to say there aren’t other reasons for making statements as factually as possible, like if the goal is to have a continued discussion on the topic based on some factual claims. But in terms of being able to make statements without people getting mad at you, I’d say it has limited utility. Possibly negative if averaged across the whole population.
Yeah, the majority of stereotypes are accurate in a statistical sense - that’s why they exist. But it’s impossible to make any general statement on this board (eg “men are taller than women”) without nitpickers demanding you add a bunch of caveats (….but obviously there is a big overlap, there are tall women and short men, we shouldn’t assume anything about any individual…) that everyone knows anyway. It gets old.
Every time I’ve been asked to give an example of something contentious, and complied, it immediately derailed the conversation into discussing the merits of the individual example, rather than the general principle. Plus on less moderated forums, got me nasty accusations (thus immediately proving my point).
Anyway, IMHO the answer to the OP is that you can’t, because the people shutting you down are generally not acting in good faith, but would prefer that nugget of truth not be discussed and are using the existence of the noxious stereotype to prevent it. It’s irrelevant how you phrase your point: their objection is to it being made at all.
(I don’t mean to imply the nitpickers are acting in bad faith. I don’t believe that. These are two separate phenomena, and I want to make that clear.)
To answer the OP - it’s fraught because pretty much everyone who tries to point out a supposed truth in a bigoted stereotype is doing so either to troll or because they’re sincerely bigoted.
There are no “good faith” interlocutors on whether Jews are just naturally, intrinsically greedier than others.
There are no truths in bigoted stereotypes - that’s why they’re bigoted.
If your example upon examination does not support the general principle then you have not given an example that supports your claim about the general principle.
The inability to provide sound examples that support the general principle strongly suggests that the general principle is false.
Then perhaps that condemnation is justified? Without an example, it sounds like this nugget might be a bigoted statement.
No, it isn’t. What is true is that of NBA basketball players, more are Black than White. But that’s not the same thing as what you wrote.
Right? I mean, the European players are mostly white and are some of the best players in the league.
ETA: As to the subject of the thread, it really seems too nebulous to be a Great Debate to me. I can’t really think of any good examples of bigoted stereotypes that contain a nugget of truth, and even the OP seems to agree that most Xs are not Y, so there’s no nugget. It’s just that this particular X does Y, so it ends up being a confirmation bias. I’m sure some Jews are greedy (I’d like more money and I’m half Jewish), but so are some Italians, Blacks, etc. But, you notice it when a particular ethnicity or race does the stereotypical thing.
When kids are playing music too loud, if they don’t comport with your assumption about who plays music too loud, you say “kids, always playing music too loud”, but if they do, you say “X, always playing music too loud.”
That’s interesting. I wasn’t aware of that.
Could I impose upon you to cite your source for that?
Thanks.
Thinking about this while walking the dog.
You’re driving along and a car cuts you off. Turns out the driver is an elderly Asian woman – pick your poison, right? That woman didn’t even see me! Asians, jeez! Old people, amirite? Which stereotype do you blame it on? Five minutes later, another car cuts you off in the same way, this time it’s a young man in a BMW with Massachusetts plates (note to international posters, “Massholes” are stereotyped as aggressive drivers). Young people, so aggressive! Those damn BMW drivers! Men are such aggressive drivers. Ugh, Massholes, amirite?
It’s just confirmation bias, whatever matches your pre-conceived notions the best.
When I encounter 30-something year old white males in my daily life, I somehow manage to keep myself from thinking, “POSSIBLE MASS SHOOTER!”
Despite the general demographics of US mass shooters to date.
Put another way: when Anders Breivik murdered 77 people in Norway, the world didn’t become irrationally afraid of white people of European descent.