I'm glad wir sprechen sie the same lingity

[Манюня]

seems to suggest that if a bigoted generalization is untrue, than it can not be offensive, such as supposition that the Jews may be known to be unfriendly.

No, that's not what I meant. I didn't say that it's the unfriendliness that's false. It's the fact that such a statement is a known stereotype that's false. Since the response to such a statement is simple - something along the lines that "no, it is not generally known, and I hear it for the first time" - it is hard to get offended by it.

Now, Krasota's statement is generally known. That qualifies it as a stereotype. Here, we can judge the offensiveness. To me, it is not offensive, but not because I'm not French. It is because Krasota merely stated the stereotype (without asserting whether or not it's true) and implied that the users in question provide yet another example justifying that stereotype. She did not proclaim the stereotype to be true.

[Манюня]

Manunya, what do you think of lawyer jokes?

Depends on a joke. Sometimes they are right on the money and reflect the reality of this profession.

[Serge7]

Манюня ! А можно пояснить, пожалуста... Где? Когда? И для чего? Произошёл в этой теме такой резкий переход на такой хороший английский?


ПС. Тема важная! Но нас же читают ещё и за океаном...:34:

[Птиц]

Depends on a joke. Sometimes they are right on the money and reflect the reality of this profession.

How 'bout this one?

"Q: How can you tell a lawyer is lying?
A: His/her lips are moving".

[Манюня]

Манюня ! А можно пояснить, пожалуста... Где? Когда? И для чего? Произошёл в этой теме такой резкий переход на такой хороший английский?

(тыкает пальцем в сторону Красоты)

[Манюня]

How 'bout this one?
"Q: How can you tell a laywer is lying?
A: His/her lips are moving".

This is the thing - I cannot get offended. You know why? Because there have been many people in this profession that brought about jokes like that. The fact that it is not true about my particular case does not obscure the fact that these jokes do have some historical basis.

[Птиц]

This is the thing - I cannot get offended. You know why? Because there have been many people in this profession that brought about jokes like that. The fact that it is not true about my particular case does not obscure the fact that these jokes do have some historical basis.

Now, let's make another switch, from jokes to statements (sans humor). Based on what you just said, such statements may be offensive to some individuals, but not to others. More specifically, certain types, such as "race slurs". Is that correct?

[Манюня]

Now, let's make another switch, from jokes to statements (sans humor). Based on what you just said, such statements may be offensive to some individuals, but not to others. More specifically, certain types, such as "race slurs". Is that correct?

To me, race slurs are different. This is because they connect certain qualities to the simple genetic characteristic that people are born with. That is, while lawyer jokes may be deserved, racial slurs, by definition, cannot be justified in the same way.

[Птиц]

To me, race slurs are different. This is because they connect certain qualities to the simple genetic characteristic that people are born with. That is, while lawyer jokes may be deserved, racial slurs, by definition, cannot be justified in the same way.

In other words, it is only those statements that deal with congenital qualities of a certain group of people that are offensive, whereas those which refer to aquired abilities or other traits, such as customs, are not?

[Манюня]

In other words, it is only those statements that deal with congenital qualities of a certain group of people that are offensive, whereas those which refer to aquired abilities or other traits, such as customs, are not?

Statements dealing with congenital qualities of a certain group of people are usually offensive, yes. As to acquired traits, they still may be offensive. It depends on a statement and its justification (or lack thereof).