I do feel like there is a flip side to that where if you're into fantasy football and drinking on weekends you're somehow less intelligent. This is evident in terms like "brogrammer" or "bro-science" I see get tossed around HN.
I doubt much of the "bro" culture stays internalized for very long after graduation. Most of it just translates to severe immaturity in the adult world. Still, there's danger in stereotype-based hatred.
Bro-science, though, is something else. It's the kind of thing that's based on anecdotes and passed off as science. It's sciencey. Things like "Bro, if you eat ground deer antler before you work out, you get huge gains! The guys at the bodybuilding show did it."
It's more obvious in sports, but I've seen it in CS and business as well. There, it's in terms of "we did X, X worked, X is the best way to do it." without comparing X to other methods of implementation. There are bonus bro-science points if other methods are scorned without consideration.
In my university, the Greek system as a whole (with the exception of two frats) was loud, obnoxious and cliquish. In addition, the vast majority of them majored in easy topics where they could get good grades with minimum effort. In fact, most house parties were thrown on Thursday nights because a ton of Greeks were business majors and the business school didn't have classes on Fridays. Or maybe it's the other way around...
What happens to those types of people? I think we all know: most of them end up under-employed (Starbucks, etc.) or they become "full-time students" by pursuing MBAs, law degrees, and so on. And of course, the ones with connections end up as pointy-haired bosses, much to our disappointment.
That's a really poor argument. You could not use that same logic for any other group of people without being called ignorant or bigoted.
They're self-associations largely based on personal interests, so it shouldn't be surprising that there are common personality traits within the groups. You miss out if you blanket-judge people based on them, of course, but that doesn't make them invalid.
That's in contrast to race, gender, etc. where the group is not self-selecting.
You're also wrong in saying someone who likes Pokemon is a specific kind of person. I know tons of "jocks" who played WoW and Pokemon with they're down time. In other words, your fleeting interests do not, and should not, define who you are.
While it is a good rule of thumb. It is possible to wear a red nose but not be a clown. So to be sure id have to meet you first.
However you could understand why I would think you could be a clown if you're wearing a red nose right?
While I think you've made a godawful argument from analogy, this part made me chuckle.