3 ms·
I am unsure whether the (im)mutability of a qualifier plays a role. For example, religion is a choice, but making generalized derogatory statements about certai
by artemonster 5y ago
I am unsure whether the (im)mutability of a qualifier plays a role. For example, religion is a choice, but making generalized derogatory statements about certain religious groups is not okay either. You can try it with the pattern of "civilized" user: """Everywhere you go, there will be _men hitting their wivers_. Disproportionately they will be ..." and say sorry afterwards.
You will be making a statistically correct statement, but you will be flagged and IRL punched in the face for saying that. But somehow saying that about BMW drivers is still allright?
- kube-system 5y agoReligion is a choice in the same way citizenship is a choice. Sometimes it is a choice, often you’re born into it, and you often have to meet qualifications to change it, and some of those may be impossible to meet. And your social environment may impose some significant expectations on you.
- artemonster 5y agonow you're trying to argue about a specifics of the example I've given. Its tangent to the main question: whether stereotyping on something that is a choice or inherent is different? If you say that it is, can you please elaborate?
- kube-system 5y agoYes, it is different, but not in a boolean sort of way. It is impolite to make fun of people for something that is not their fault... and generally speaking, the degree to which it wasn't a choice (and the degree to which it impacts someone's life experience) contributes to the degree of impoliteness.
- artemonster 5y agomaking fun of a group != inferring generalizing statements about a group. I am completely with you about "making fun" part, but this concrete example is different