3 ms·

Yes, but this isn't it. The burden of proof is on you.

• viraptor 4y ago
  I don't think there's really a burden of proof as such on anyone. Whether something qualifies or not will be a consensus in a given community, location, timeframe, etc. There's quite a bit of substance behind the idea that it is problematic. (Already linked) But there will be nuance too.
  • aydyn 4y ago
    > There's quite a bit of substance behind the idea that it is problematic. (Already linked) There isn't substance, it's willful misinterpretation. The joke/hoax/op whatever you want to call it is -right there-. It isn't an attack on a racial or ethnic group, it's an attack on a political identity. Is attacking liberals now considered "hate"? They are telling you what they are doing and, as predicted, their opposition is willing to play along. > Whether something qualifies or not will be a consensus in a given community, location, timeframe, etc. I feel like this statement is pretty sophomoric.
    • viraptor 4y ago
      > I feel like this statement is pretty sophomoric. Come on, there's lots of examples for each. Location: fag (UK/US), timeframe: queer (reappropriation), community: see Kendrick Lamar / Delaney controversy.
      • aydyn 4y ago
        I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm saying it's not adding value. Argue the point, don't make this a meta-discussion.