What's with all the ELO misunderstandings?

For clarity, what I mean is the general stereotyping of "500 ELO players are still learning the names of the pieces"

Or the "All games below 1400 are decided by blunders"

It just seems rather... wrong considering my experience these past few months as I have studied and climbed the ranks. At 500 I at least had to watch out for common tactics (Fried Liver, Scholar's Mate, or a few other openings) and use my own, and try to focus in the middlegame.

Granted, I am only hovering around the high 900-low 1000 rating range, so a lot of what I say can be taken for granted, and I have no doubt someone might look through my past few games.

Back on track though, while many games often do exhibit blunders at these lower ELO ranges, I have had multiple games where there simply are no blunders, just a few inaccuracies. In fact, multiple of my last few games have had 80+ accuracy, which I come to know is not uncommon for the 1000 range; Why do people still stereotype players who aren't GMs to be stupid?

It's quite refreshing to see other people pointing this out. Even way back in the 700s it wasn't uncommon for me to encounter some surprisingly strong players who clearly knew at least a few openings quite well and were very much capable of spotting not very obvious tactics quite quickly. By the time I finally got out of there and into the 900s, I felt like I'd accomplished something truly great. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for me to realize that 900-rated players tend to have both the unpredictability of a 300 and the skills of some of the better 700s I'd come across in the past, so I was in for quite a rough time. Completing the final hurdle to the quad digit club was no easy feat.

Now, admittedly, some games at my current rating really are decided by idiotic errors. However, it's not nearly as common as some people make it out to be. A person completely hanging a piece actually occurs only once for every four or five games on average for me, but if you listen to these people a lot you'd think it happens at least twice in every game.

A variety of reasons. No doubt some 500s are bad, but it shouldn't be the stereotype. I think people opinions on ELO and when someone is new vs intermediate vs a master is largely thrown off by how many people reach 3000, yet aren't masters. How many people are at the lower end, and how many people are intermediate. The stereotypes also come from people trying to feel good about themselves by knocking down others.