There have been several recent posts that express appropriate information in a very biased way.

Example 1: Ich mache in...

Ich kann keine etymologische Herkunft aufzeigen, aber dieser Satz riecht für mich förmlich nach einer Neuerschaffung von genau den Leuten, die ihn auch benutzen; Vertreter, Aktienhaie und Börsenmakler.

The content is appropriate even if other posters would disagree, but "riecht förmlich" and "Aktienhaie" make this post a platform for the poster's dislike of salesmen and brokers.

da eine solche Formulierung oftmals mit einer verschleierischen Natur einhergeht.

Again, instead of neutrally describing the commercial sales context where dissimulation is indeed present, this is attributed to the "disssimulating nature" of the people in question.

Ein einfaches investieren war den Herren Kapitalbesitz wohl zu simpel,

Again, the formulation "Herren Kapitalbesitz" conveys no information except the disdain of the poster.

Note that the issue here is not that I disagree with the general message of the answer.

Example 2:

Wie spricht man von der deutschen Sprache?

Dativ anstelle des Genitivs benutzen nur Leute mit einer niedrigeren Bildung

This is a post that misinforms to transport the posters sympathies. In the question the genitive was not replaced by the dative but by a contruction with "vom", it is not even true that this kind of replacement is only used by people of low education, neither for "von"-constructions nor for dative-replacement.

A good answer would say something like never to use the "vom"-variant in written German and that the genitiv-variant also sounds better and more educated in spoken German.

There is quite a difference between identifying speech elements as education markers and use them indiscriminately on all speakers oneself. The first one is a sign of knowledge of language nuances, the second one is a sign of missing reflection on one's biases about markers that are in fact class markers and region markers.

Question: What should be the limit of conveying one's personal antipathies in this forum as evidenced by the opinion about fat cats or lower class people?

I repeat that this is not about the question whether it is true that "ich mache in" is a marker of stock brokers or not, it is about the choice of negative words and presenting markers as 100% reliable education predictors.

There have been several recent posts that express appropriate information in a very biased way.

Example 1: Ich mache in...

Ich kann keine etymologische Herkunft aufzeigen, aber dieser Satz riecht für mich förmlich nach einer Neuerschaffung von genau den Leuten, die ihn auch benutzen; Vertreter, Aktienhaie und Börsenmakler.

The content is appropriate even if other posters would disagree, but "riecht förmlich" and "Aktienhaie" make this post a platform for the poster's dislike of salesmen and brokers.

da eine solche Formulierung oftmals mit einer verschleierischen Natur einhergeht.

Again, instead of neutrally describing the commercial sales context where dissimulation is indeed present, this is attributed to the "disssimulating nature" of the people in question.

Ein einfaches investieren war den Herren Kapitalbesitz wohl zu simpel,

Again, the formulation "Herren Kapitalbesitz" conveys no information except the disdain of the poster.

Note that the issue here is not that I disagree with the general message of the answer.

Example 2:

Wie spricht man von der deutschen Sprache?

Dativ anstelle des Genitivs benutzen nur Leute mit einer niedrigeren Bildung

This is a post that misinforms to transport the posters sympathies. In the question the genitive was not replaced by the dative but by a contruction with "vom", it is not even true that this kind of replacement is only used by people of low education, neither for "von"-constructions nor for dative-replacement.

A good answer would say something like never to use the "vom"-variant in written German and that the genitiv-variant also sounds better and more educated in spoken German.

There is quite a difference between identifying speech elements as education markers and use them indiscriminately on all speakers oneself. The first one is a sign of knowledge of language nuances, the second one is a sign of missing reflection on one's biases about markers that are in fact class markers and region markers.

Question: What should be the limit of conveying one's personal antipathies in this forum as evidenced by the opinion about fat cats or lower class people?

I repeat that this is not about the question whether it is true that "ich mache in" is a marker of stock brokers or not, it is about the choice of negative words and presenting markers as 100% reliable education predictors.