If all your scammers are from one geographical location halfway across the world, it is fine to refer to it and you shouldn't be shamed for naming it. Lest we police ourselves into ignorance.
Only if you are having a conversation where the demographics of the scammers has relevance.
In the case of discussing LinkedIn, it doesn’t matter where the scammers are from. The adjective is redundant in this context.
In this thread, almost any other adjective would have allowed the main meaning of the sentence to continue uninterrupted (“filthy scammers”, “frustrating scammers”, “purple scammers”, “fearless scammers”). “Scammers” already includes a negative connotation. By adding a redundant adjective to an already pejorative noun, you run the risk of imparting some of that negativity onto the adjective as well. This easily leads to the perception of racism.
I don't agree with that. By giving the unique location you have indicated there is a big problem that is perhaps more solvable than it would have been otherwise, since there is a limited group of people, many who are presumably organized, in a specific location. That is something much easier for LinkedIn to deal with than a generalized trend to scam the site from around the world, presumably with a much greater variety of tactics and targets.
That’s completely different, because it’s based on your personal opinion/attitude towards certain people. On the other hand, calling scammers who they are is not subjective (unless you’re falsely accusing someone).
'Who they are' is scammers, it's not relevant that some of them are Indian.
My point is that it's the same because the 'personal opinion/attitude towards certain people' is that all of them are Indian.
It's as racist as saying 'I'm sick of these Poles taking our jobs'. The truthful existence of Polish economic migration doesn't make it not a racist attitude.
