against the majority.
Is this just something which has to be put up with as a form of justified payback?
I posted this on another thread as it is no longer the case.
What I mean is that when a former oppressed minority is, to some extent, emancipated then it is no longer allowed for the majority to comment at all and it becomes alright for the minority to discriminate against the majority.
This applies to black people, women, LGBTQ et al and all other minorities, including self-described minorities no one has ever heard of.
These groups are then allowed to do what the majority is forbidden to do.
For example, black and asian comedians' acts are virtually all racist remarks and blatant taunting such as "You white people" are accepted.
Stephen Fry's blatant homosexual remarks are made to other men which if made by a man to a woman would cause uproar.
Even Victoria Coren said, on HIGNFY, to Jacob Rees-Mogg that she found him strangely attractive. Imagine that the other way round.
Russel Howard instantly apologises, on MtW, to a woman whose arm he inadvertently touched yet women frequently touch men on the forearm or thigh/knee as part of conversation.
Even today on the BBC news page Unilever are in trouble because an advert of theirs asked if people were in the 66% who supported breast-feeding in public or the 34% who think otherwise.
"But "Unmumsy Mum" blogger Sarah Turner said in an open letter to Dove, posted on Facebook, that supporting the "dangerous" view that it was acceptable to criticise breastfeeding in public could put mums off."
So, to be otherwise is not allowed as it is dangerous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40478372
First baby to not have gender recorded on health card because
"Parent Kori Doty - a non-binary transgender person who identifies as neither male nor female - aims to allow the child to discover their own gender."
Who needs to know?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40480386
Is it therefore the case that you are, in fact, NOT allowed to have any opinion which is against the deemed acceptable thinking of the time.
I suppose I should state before the ranters get in that I do not agree with discriminating against any of these groups but banning any discussion is not the way forward.
Or, as I said, as a member of several kinds of the majority is it merely allowed as justified payback?
Is this just something which has to be put up with as a form of justified payback?
I posted this on another thread as it is no longer the case.
What I mean is that when a former oppressed minority is, to some extent, emancipated then it is no longer allowed for the majority to comment at all and it becomes alright for the minority to discriminate against the majority.
This applies to black people, women, LGBTQ et al and all other minorities, including self-described minorities no one has ever heard of.
These groups are then allowed to do what the majority is forbidden to do.
For example, black and asian comedians' acts are virtually all racist remarks and blatant taunting such as "You white people" are accepted.
Stephen Fry's blatant homosexual remarks are made to other men which if made by a man to a woman would cause uproar.
Even Victoria Coren said, on HIGNFY, to Jacob Rees-Mogg that she found him strangely attractive. Imagine that the other way round.
Russel Howard instantly apologises, on MtW, to a woman whose arm he inadvertently touched yet women frequently touch men on the forearm or thigh/knee as part of conversation.
Even today on the BBC news page Unilever are in trouble because an advert of theirs asked if people were in the 66% who supported breast-feeding in public or the 34% who think otherwise.
"But "Unmumsy Mum" blogger Sarah Turner said in an open letter to Dove, posted on Facebook, that supporting the "dangerous" view that it was acceptable to criticise breastfeeding in public could put mums off."
So, to be otherwise is not allowed as it is dangerous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40478372
First baby to not have gender recorded on health card because
"Parent Kori Doty - a non-binary transgender person who identifies as neither male nor female - aims to allow the child to discover their own gender."
Who needs to know?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40480386
Is it therefore the case that you are, in fact, NOT allowed to have any opinion which is against the deemed acceptable thinking of the time.
I suppose I should state before the ranters get in that I do not agree with discriminating against any of these groups but banning any discussion is not the way forward.
Or, as I said, as a member of several kinds of the majority is it merely allowed as justified payback?
Short attention/ concentration span , not that any one would notice 
