Christian Mango is 10 years old. In April, his fourth-grade teacher at Canterbury School in Greensboro, North Carolina, gave the class an assignment. Write a ... Read More
I mean ok, she’s definitely an awful woman and shouldn’t be doing this job, but judging an individual for their membership of a group that represents some statistical shift from the median is as close to textbook bigotry as you can get. You wouldn’t tolerate someone suggesting that women shouldn’t be allowed physical jobs because they’re statistically weaker.
I do agree with the general idea of what you are saying, however I do not think it really applies to what the original commenter or the article/post we are replying to are saying.
When it comes to politics and making changes that impact our future, we are playing a really stupid game always putting people in charge that feel zero consequences for poor, shortsighted decisions. In many cases, the shortsightedness of the decision actually benefits them, as they won’t be around for the consequences. In our current plight, that happens to largely be the boomers.
Alternatively, using your example, a (theoretical, statistically weaker) woman works a physical labour job, any consequence is felt immediately. If she can perform her job, then she isn’t too weak to… perform her job, I guess.
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t see it as bigotry to assert that we should have the groups invested in our future making those decisions. Eventually it isn’t the statistical chance that the boomers aren’t capable of doing the physical labour (or work in general), but instead the totality of the boomers being too old to work.
I mean ok, she’s definitely an awful woman and shouldn’t be doing this job, but judging an individual for their membership of a group that represents some statistical shift from the median is as close to textbook bigotry as you can get. You wouldn’t tolerate someone suggesting that women shouldn’t be allowed physical jobs because they’re statistically weaker.
I do agree with the general idea of what you are saying, however I do not think it really applies to what the original commenter or the article/post we are replying to are saying.
When it comes to politics and making changes that impact our future, we are playing a really stupid game always putting people in charge that feel zero consequences for poor, shortsighted decisions. In many cases, the shortsightedness of the decision actually benefits them, as they won’t be around for the consequences. In our current plight, that happens to largely be the boomers.
Alternatively, using your example, a (theoretical, statistically weaker) woman works a physical labour job, any consequence is felt immediately. If she can perform her job, then she isn’t too weak to… perform her job, I guess.
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t see it as bigotry to assert that we should have the groups invested in our future making those decisions. Eventually it isn’t the statistical chance that the boomers aren’t capable of doing the physical labour (or work in general), but instead the totality of the boomers being too old to work.