I wonder why it is necessary to mention "Indians that are scamming" him as if scamming is something only Indians do? Should I be careful only when dealing with Indian consultants and presume others won't lie or cheat?
Probably because Indians are the ones that are leaders in scamming? Also, if you paid attention, I've mentioned the initial Python dev was an honest Indian, he did his job within terms of contract. The data scientist, which in this case was a Canadian, is solely at fault for not disclosing full scale to the Indian one.
You really seem to have a way with words where, while the point of your original premise (i.e. lack of requirements, technical competence) is valid you have managed to bury that under completely unrelated negative and racist stereotyping.
>as if [bad thing] is something only [group] do?
This is such a nonsense statement and it comes up everytime someone describes someones nationality in correlation with something awful.
Honest question, when you read the line "[...]Chinese that are good at math [...]" do you read that all Chinese people are math-wizards? Because that is not what it says.
What about "[...] black people that are fast runners [...]"?
all 3 examples, including the one that turned on your torch of virtue, describes a sub-set of a group, the primary attribute of said group and nothing more.
If anything the implication that the guy you were replied to is somehow biased and "racist" against the absolute-plague-tier of disproportional scammers coming out of India is based on nothing but your inability to differentiate between "broadspectrum-racism" and "critism of a subset of a group"
This is a very charitable reading of the comment, and the examples stated seem somewhat unrelated.
A closer analogy will be: "He was lost in New York City. Later, he cursed at all the Blacks who robbed him." Or "He had an intense negotiation with the financiers. He later cursed at all the Jews who were scamming him."
As you may note, the term "jews" or "blacks" or "Indians" (in the original comment) is not merely stated as an adjective to describe the individuals, rather it is used in pejorative sense to denote a cultural trait within the group that makes them act in a particular manner. A child comment by the original poster makes his prejudice quite clear: "Probably because Indians are the ones that are leaders in scamming? "
I get your whole point about talking about individual, subset, and group, but it looks like just a defence for calling Indians "world leaders in scamming.", rather than some data based, dispassionate description of the situation.
You have to resort to using analogies when the actual sentence in question transfers very well in my examples?
I'm making extreme examples out of the sentence, but putting something 'awesome' with it. Being good at math / Fast runners etc - to make the point very concise and on point.
Had i run with the theme and went "White people who shoots up schools [...]" or "Black people who sell crack cocaine" you would have likely missed the point entirely because I'm using negative-stereotypes.
That the child-comment elaborates his thoughts into racist ramblings is frankly irrelevant to me. The guy is clearly both illiterate, insensitive and likely in the silly end of the bell curve.
>That the child-comment elaborates his thoughts into racist ramblings is frankly irrelevant to me
It should not be. We need to call these people out and put a stop to such behaviour.
Coming to your comments; "positive stereotypes" just earn a gentle laugh while "negative stereotypes" lead to racist behaviour with a disproportionate impact on the real world. They are not the same.
Yes, because whether he is a racist or not is not relevant to the point i was making.
> We [...]
We, do not need to do anything. But go ahead, engage him, feed him with the social interaction the rest of us deprive him of - because he is a shitty person.
Waste your time all you want.
> Coming to your comments; "positive stereotypes" just earn a gentle laugh while "negative stereotypes" lead to racist behaviour with a disproportionate impact on the real world. They are not the same.
Predictable that you are missing the point entirely. Please reread the exchange, one line at a time. Else you might think and label me as a racist because you have put up a communication barrier and absolutely refuse to understand my original point.
edit: grammar