You have to actually mingle with the subcultures to get a better understanding and to actually realize that these 'sterotypes' are out-of-date.
From what you've said, people have said their 'emo', and automatically you have stereotyped them. Have you got to know some of them completely? Not just heard one story and assumed?
I can only speak for the ones I've met. It's quite possible that it's just different where I live. I was just of the understanding that the definition of "emo" involved being depressed about everything.
Everyone should define themselves as individuals but most people don't know how to. They don't understand individuality, they only see groups. (when I say they, I don't mean the whole subculture, just mainly kids).
The correct action, then, is to encourage people to be strong individuals and not define themselves in group terms.
And my question doesn't just go against stereotypes, it's aimed at everyone. So basically the question would be, Would you be p**sed if the government was trying to control your life by not letting you do the things you enjoy?
You would be p**sed. It goes against your freedom as a human being.
Sure, but there is a line. For instance, what if I enjoyed walking around in the nude? Is the government right to limit that? Why? The relevant question here is, does the limitation significantly impact one group's way of life and does it significantly enhance everyone else's? Going nude in public is quite disgusting to the rest of us and limiting them to their own "camps" (or just not doing it) doesn't significantly impact their way of life. "Emo" culture doesn't really negatively impact the rest of us (for the most part, though I do find it annoying), but do these laws really significantly impact these kids? I guess what I'm saying is, is it really a big deal?
The label is just a word. Just because they say they are 'emo' doesn't mean they are the stereotype. Your assuming they are the stereotype. And they are not asking you to do anything. You are saying it to yourself.
The word itself
is a stereotype. Stereotype literally means "a simplified image." When you define yourself in group terms like this, you're doing exactly that: concocting a simplified image for yourself.
Also, just because it bothers me: your is possessive, you're is a contraction for "you are." It should be "you're assuming."
But do you have to turn it into a competition? It's not a competition to find out who has the most problems.
The point is that you should be able to overcome those problems because there are people with far worse problems who are doing the same.
It's not hypocrisy. Being a successful 'emo' is not stereotyping. Maybe things are different between the USA and the UK. The majority of 'emos', 'goths' and 'rockers' leave school with A*-B grades. Some end up in successful bands. E.G. Black Veil Brides, Finch, Hawthorne Heights and many more...
But again, you've only met stereotypical 'emos'.
'Emo' is a phase that some people go through in their life as kids. Many grow out of it, some keep the style, but the point is, just because some people call themselves an 'emo', doesn't necessarily mean they are the stereotyped 'emo'.
Hypocrisy is a bit strong. Anyway, you were basically saying that most emos end up successful. That's a generalization (one with no numbers to back it up, but I won't belabor that point). The reason I said that was hypocritical was because you called me out for making generalizations in the same sort of way: saying the majority of emos think their problems are worse than the rest of ours. Maybe mine is only true where I live and for those I've met, but none of the emo kids I remember from high school went on to be successful, and many dropped out. Yours is also a generalization and is no more universally true than mine.