> or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person
Often said, yet it somehow very often excludes religion, which is not immutable, and very often includes simple matters such as intelligence, which is immutable.
I find that more often than not, when a man speaks of such “immutable" traits, what he really means is “whatever the culture I grew up in arbitrarily treats much like an ethnicity, a tribe, something to owe fealty to” — religion is that in many cultures, but intelligence is not.
And I stress how cultural it is: it is often noted that in Japan religion is not treated as such a tribe, culturally, and that Japanese persons often find it curious how residents of other cultures can owe a lifelong fealty to a single religion rather than experiencing elements of multiple religions as it be suitable.
One could argue that such things are so associated with immutability merely because they are treated as a fealty in their respective cultures, a lifelong allegiance, and that switching sides is considered such a betrayal, that they are culturally made immutable, even though there is obviously no reason why religion or political affiliation should be.
>> And I stress how cultural it is: it is often noted that in Japan religion is not treated as such a tribe, culturally, and that Japanese persons often find it curious how residents of other cultures can owe a lifelong fealty to a single religion rather than experiencing elements of multiple religions as it be suitable.
You seem to conveniently ignore the blindingly simple context that for the past 20 years, America has been bombing and invading a single region of the world in the name of evangelical fanatics from the bible belt.
And that's looking past the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan where America created and armed the Taliban. It's not snowflake grievance culture to suggest there is a targetted religion here.
Large swathes of the target population are run by dictators funded by America's geopolitical strategic initiatives. We are agreed in some sense: religion is a unifying cause which leads to irrational tribalism. The point is these are societies that have constantly been interfered with due to western military adventures and it's quite easy to unify a rallying cause. Not least in immigrant populations resident in the West, such as myself.
Often said, yet it somehow very often excludes religion, which is not immutable, and very often includes simple matters such as intelligence, which is immutable.
I find that more often than not, when a man speaks of such “immutable" traits, what he really means is “whatever the culture I grew up in arbitrarily treats much like an ethnicity, a tribe, something to owe fealty to” — religion is that in many cultures, but intelligence is not.
And I stress how cultural it is: it is often noted that in Japan religion is not treated as such a tribe, culturally, and that Japanese persons often find it curious how residents of other cultures can owe a lifelong fealty to a single religion rather than experiencing elements of multiple religions as it be suitable.
One could argue that such things are so associated with immutability merely because they are treated as a fealty in their respective cultures, a lifelong allegiance, and that switching sides is considered such a betrayal, that they are culturally made immutable, even though there is obviously no reason why religion or political affiliation should be.