4 ms·
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
by 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 6y 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 6y 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?