Originally posted by ODG
If I were as intolerant as you think I am, then I would go crying to federal authorities about your posts and Astner's.Instead, I am treating you as what you are, stupid people who think that the assault of bigotry = freedom of thought.
You and Astner can both continue acting like you're marginalized. But if you were in an African, Asian, Arabic or Muslim dominated country where you'd be less than 15% of the dominant population, you'd be weeping for people to defend your right to be free from being terrorized by the majority.
Refusing to recognize your own privilege is probably the most b1tchmade sentiment there could be in the world morally, religiously, ethically, pragmatically, etc. It's not that hard:
Ok, serious mode now.
A logic test for you;
Government promotes specific social causes by policies and what is allowed to be taught in schools. True or false?
Media is necessary to spread a message, true or false?
Together, media and governments are gatekeepers of information to the public, correct?
If this is true, if we assume hostility to a just cause from information gatekeepers, how can a message be spread?
I'd argue it can not.
Basically, I'm asking "Who watches the Watch Men".
I mean you can call this paranoia, but the way I see it authoritative institutions pick winners and losers all the time. There is really no such thing as "grassroots activism" that can gain traction without that support. That worries me. They certainly aren't promoting LGBTQ out of the goodness of their hearts. They either benefit somehow, or have nothing to fear from them. Which in and of itself is FINE, but that means you can't really ever oppose them if they become the problem.