These kinds of problems annoy me. For instance, you're walking in a big city late at night and you see a black guy walking towards you. Should you cross the street?
This is not, however, a complicated situation, even though many people think it is. It's very simple. Of course you should cross the street. When it's a matter of safety versus empathy, you choose safety.
Now let's say you're in a high school classroom and there's a black kid who's trying to initiate a conversation with you and be friendly. You are confronted with the situation of engaging in conversation or disengaging. Should the color of his skin make any difference in your decision? Of course not. Why? Because the safety risk is so slight that empathy outweighs safety.
You just always look to which outweighs which, safety or empathy. It's true that a larger percentage of blacks than whites commit crimes in big cities. Get over it. It doesn't change the fact that the risk of the black kid in your classroom is negligibly small. And the risk of any white kid being a criminal is also there, existent; perhaps a little smaller, but still there. I admit this example isn't very compelling, but it works, and I'm too busy to think of a better example.
So when safety is not an issue, you consider empathy. Now, in this case, Killer360 is making a generalization about Indians that can hurt their feelings. Why? Is he somehow unsafe, and does this statement somehow improve his safety, like crossing the street? No, of course it doesn't, he's on the fucking interweb. And so we consider empathy, and he is clearly getting negative points for empathy, and thus he has made the wrong decision in making a generalization that can offend many others.
