"Stereotyping is the highest form of sacrificial thinking" I'm not sure if this is a serious question, maybe it's just your turn of phrase, but do you have in mind a range of lesser forms of sacrificial thinking that are not "stereotyping"? When you talk about lowering the threshold of significance you are talking about less or more violent forms of sacrifice; yet wouldn't all sacrifice require some form of generalization, a rejection of nominalism?
Sacrificial as generalization, nominalism as lowering the threshold. I hadn't thought about it that way, but it's interesting (and I suppose implicit in my post). Nominalism in general wouldn't mean lowering the threshold (looking at the beginning of this sentence leads me to wonder whether you could look at nominalism nominalistically)--It's the new naming, against the sacrificial background, that does the lowering. Here, I'm thinking about "sacrificial" as the division of the object--you can only proceed to the division of the object once you have driven out the source of the asymmetry. So, stereotyping allots a portion to all along with preparing in advance a schedule of victims. But this assumes a general economy of stereotyping--so, the lower form of sacrificial thinking would be generalization for thee, but not for me--I'm normal and natural, you're the aberration. (I see plenty of discussions of Jews that fit one model or the other.) If there's a schedule of victims, there's room for deferral.