When you hear “stereotype of death” the phrase “malevolent and heartless” may quickly spring to mind, regardless of its accuracy. That’s a stereotype. And the thing you’re stereotyping is also, coincidentally, a stereotype.

Actually that's a stereotype of an archetype; Death as it appears in fiction is an archetype.

I'm under the impression things work like this:

Archetypes are kind of like conventions or mathematical objects with specifications and meta-specifications, especially of types of characters. 
Stereotypes are the popular beliefs about a thing, whether or not they're true.

Stereotypes of stereotypes would look something more like popular beliefs about popular beliefs.
Stereotypes of archetypes are popular beliefs about the pieces of (esp. well-known) broad character type ontologies.

Until it is over ridden by some new evidence then it should shift positions.

Mhm but just to lampshade this: this is assuming that 'the moon is round like a wheel of cheese' is not only learned in just any relevant sense of "in isolation" but rather the strictest possible sense, in which that is literally the first thing ever learned, which is extremely implausible, but nonetheless I think being able to entertain such a strict and abstract definition for the sake of argument is very based; upvoted.

Insulins which humans inject are modified versions of cow insulin. Cows probably don't eat a lot of fat or carbs, right? They eat grass? I feel like someone should check what happens when you feed a cow the diet which puts humans who are taking insulin injections in the 'the swamp' state.

Actually it's a self-insistent status grab to call oneself kind when they tend to have no money to donate and 'niceness' is the banner of the battle droid people who tend to really care and they deserve that recognition, not this additional put-down. By my framings I would say that there is more or less sub- or super-ficial niceness.

so there's like an ultimate thing that your set of predictions is about, and you're holding off on saying what is to be vindicated until some time that you can say "this is exactly/approximately what i was saying would happen"?

im not trying to be negative; i can still see utility in that if that's a fair assessment but i want to know why, when you say you called it, this was the thing you wanted to have been called

This sounds to me kind of like saying Jesus Christ will literally come back to Earth as a ghost for the rapture in 2012. I wouldn't put my money on people not just using the government to make something else happen.

People already wanted to distrust technology; there are plenty of personally fulfilling narrative roles people would gain from simply attempting the ordinary governmental intervention efforts humans have always tended to. I'm not saying it will be competently executed but it would probably be at least as good as internet- and automation-assisted feudalism.

I'd distinguish 'imparting information that happens to induce guilt' from 'guilting', based on intent to cooperatively inform vs. psychologically attack.

Mhm, and in practice no one who accuses of guilt tripping actually cares about that distinction; if someone is being made to look bad then they basically never wonder if it's right. I'm not objecting to the 'guilt-tripping' framing for no reason; it's a thought-terminating cliche in 99.99% of cases where it's used.

[reading what I actually wrote here] ... And anyways 'inducing guilt' is what the most relevant informing-act looks like; if you're doing something wrong then you don't necessarily change it without attending to the exact details which would induce guilt. I never even said anything about 'guilting'; OP explicitly discouraged a correct thing to do without even mentioning 'guilting'.

In a well-founded marriage, spouses don’t try to induce internal conflict within their partner (e.g. shaming or guilting them) to win fights.

So I would expect that giving others a list of true information which connotes their relevant wrongness in some way on some topic (and may thereby induce guilt especially when the problem is explicitly stated) is not well-founded, according to you. Under well-founded environments, those with the advantage of existing unchallenged multi-prejudiced ideology would never be held accountable to their mistakes because all conscientious objectors can just be made into annoying squares.

Even worse, you contend that the opposite is to be "coherent" "like North Korea" "because everyone listens to the same person". So in your option model there's just no position corresponding to being virtuously willing to contend with guilt as a fair emergent consequence of hearing carefully considered and selected information.

Strong downvoted for not just saying what you're really thinking to the person you have a criticism about which is almost definitely wrong.

Still I guess there should be a word for being mean to one or a few guys in particular against one's stated principles without an objectively justifying explanation. I would like it to be something else. Especially because your example does not involve predictable scapegoat targeting to match the way that this phenomenon happens in real life.