Well I'll press you a little there. Imagine the same social worker applies the same fallacious reasoning in choosing a life partner. It seems to me that this is something one might remonstrate about if one cared for the social worker as a friend, but not something socially unacceptable in the way that it would be applied to professional life, and that because the social worker has power qua social worker as distinct from the privilege of personal foibles in private life. Liberty requires us to accept the one and find the other unacceptable. — unenlightened

The application of fallacious reasoning is the problem. If that problem goes away, any problems in whatever scenario you construct go away too. (Well, the ones pertaining to reasoning anyway)

One can never have too many south-bashing songs. Now, don't you be triggered, y'all!

I think that you are still making a generalisation and thinking in stereotypes when you suggest that 'fat' people are lazy and eat a lot. I don't like the word fat even I don't think that it is even about being politically correct, but because I have seen people being taunted as being 'fat' and bullied.

But, going back to the idea of people being lazy because they are overweight, I have worked with many who are far from lazy. As for eating a lot, I am sure that many do, but I am not sure that it is always true, as it may be about what they eat. I think that there is even a link between obesity and being poor in the Western world. I also have heard people who trying to lose weight saying that it is more about changing diet is the most important factor.

However, we aren't really just talking about weight issues but about stereotypes and generalizations. I think that one other stereotype is about the way in which people think about religious people. I think that once people are put into a category people make stereotypical assumptions about certain beliefs. For example, I have seen people making assumptions that people who are religious, Christian, Muslim or some other faith, will be anti gay people. This is based on certain ideas about sexuality within religious thinking, but it is not the case that all religious people have certain views about sexuality.

I think that stereotypes are about generalisations, which rule out viewing the particular. It is when people begin to make assumptions about the individual without even asking for more details. I think that it can become a basis for prejudice and discrimination, such as in employers' unconscious bias in job interviews.

A stereotype is unacceptable when the (pre)judgement is acted on, and is directly proportional to the power and authority of the actor. — unenlightened

Define acted on. Let's say I'm entirely powerless but I tell an important CEO constantly that blacks are lazy. I'm not really helping and if he takes me seriously I instigated harm. I think stereotypes are always potentially harmful even while at the same time being a good heuristic tool (people in the UK probably speak English)0

Define acted on. Let's say I'm entirely powerless but I tell an important CEO constantly that blacks are lazy. I'm not really helping and if he takes me seriously ... — Benkei

... then you are not powerless. The power behind the throne is still power. I'm not sure I want to fall down the definitional rabbit hole, but I agree stereotypes are always potentially harmful, and that because no one is entirely impotent. So speech is an act, as has been mentioned; muttering under one's breath is an act and we know that some people's speech acts are more influential than other's. If no one hears me, or no one pays any attention, then my act has no real effect. To the extent it affects anyone it has power. I think that is clear enough?