Pretty sure that they're not going to stop whining about it though.
What do blacks, whites, or Jews have to do with what I said? I'm not sure I see your point.
Is it asking why can we make a generalization about one group and not some other groups? I don't think any group should off limits for analysis. Some generalizations hold at least some truth and others don't. Some generalizations are almost always true while others are only slightly more true than chance. In the end what matters is the facts and truth. The context, intent, and character of the generalization matter too (e.g. "death to all Mormons" vs "blacks like fried chicken" vs "Latvians never skydive or own cats").
What do blacks, whites, or Jews have to do with what I said? I'm not sure I see your point.
Is it asking why can we make a generalization about one group and not some other groups? I don't think any group should off limits for analysis. Some generalizations hold at least some truth and others don't. Some generalizations are almost always true while others are only slightly more true than chance. In the end what matters is the facts and truth. The context, intent, and character of the generalization matter too (e.g. "death to all Mormons" vs "blacks like fried chicken" vs "Latvians never skydive or own cats").
As long as you're even-handed about it, my question doesn't apply. ;)
As long as you're even-handed about it, my question doesn't apply. ;)
So, and just for the sake of discussion, how is this kind of thinking any different from <insert race>? I mean, if I replace the words indicating "wealthy people" with, say, "white" or "Jew" or "black", how is it suddenly okay?