Thank you for the insight on where you draw the line, that explains a lot. Still, a hard terrain to navigate on when you can say something and when you can't, e

Thank you for the insight on where you draw the line, that explains a lot. Still, a hard terrain to navigate on when you can say something and when you can't, even if you make correct statements backed up by data. Just to be clear we're on the same page: I've made absolutely same observation about other bmw drivers. and we, humans, do exactly that: observe and generalize. Regarding my personal beliefs, as I've stated above "I personally believe in statistics and I believe you cannot use* them to make derogatory* generalizations" 1. regarding "use": you cannot use specifically statistics/data to justify any *-ist remark. "I hate bmw drivers because most of them are assholes on the road", an example of that (not what you said!) 2. regarding "derogatory": you can(and should!) use statistics to do (just) generalizations, i.e. in a context of talking about group behaviour. "most of bmw drivers are agressive and dangerous drivers, as shown by this data" is a perfectly fine statement. My problem is that you can say that sort of statements about certain group of drivers, but if you would have pulled up a similar argument and used (for example) PoC and crime rates, you would have been torn to pieces by everyone. And for me, on the surface, the statement and the structure would be absolutely the same (and it is STILL not escalated to exclusion and dehumanization). So whats the difference? And why different treatment? People above are arguing that buying BMW its a choice and using inherent (immutable) properties (i.e. race/gender) is different for the case of stereotyping, but I cannot see the key difference that makes okay to do one and not okay to do another.