3 ms·

Ageist? I didn't say they all were, just the ones with this special kind of anti-youth aggression. You know, the ageist ones.

• KMag 6y ago
  Without supporting justification, you literally said that only members of the baby boomer generation who also have lead poisoning would continue to act in such a shameful way after being rebuked. I'm not a Boomer, but I feel like sloppy reasoning and other prejudices should be resisted whenever they are encountered. Saying "only a boomer with lead poisoning would continue to act so shamefully" isn't conceptually different from saying "only a black person with lead poisoning would continue to act so shamefully". Does that make it more clear why that phrasing should be called out?
  • Igelau 5y ago
    > Does that make it more clear why that phrasing should be called out? You have successfully obscured the issue even further by introducing the irrelevant factor of race. > sloppy reasoning and other prejudices should be resisted whenever they are encountered Providing an excellent example in the process. If I seem as confused to you as you do to me, then maybe we have found some common ground.
    • KMag 5y ago
      > You have successfully obscured the issue even further by introducing the irrelevant factor of race. I substituted one protected class for another, where it's more commonly seen as a necessary protected class. This is a pretty common device to illustrate bias in language. Are you arguing that it's fine to make your statement about a generation, but not about a race? If so, why?