You seem to place more value in the views of the supposed victims of discrimination. Ironically, this is discriminatory to anyone else who has something to say on the topic.
> Ironically, this is discriminatory to anyone else who has something to say on the topic.
Pointing out discrimination is not discrimination. Telling a marginalized person how they should view their own identity is not your place. Doubly so because you don't seem to understand the meaning of "discrimination" outside "someone told me I was wrong."
Was I being discriminitory? Or are you referring to someone else?
If you want to have a discussion based on discrimination in the here and now that's one thing, dredging up century plus old things to complain about doesn't get anyone anywhere. In fact it weakens your argument because it suggests that the only discrimination is past discrimination, and we now live in an enlightened world where there is no discrimination.
Further. You're veering very far from the question posed, and inserting a lot of assumptions you have no basis for making.
> Further. You're veering very far from the question posed
I'm here because you decided to argue semantics. Try some self reflection.
> (in terms of your ancestors being forced into slavery for the color of their skin or the constant barrage of laws attempted to keep you below others in society because of the color of your skin)
Where's all this slavery? What are these laws?
>I'm here because you decided to argue semantics. Try some self reflection.
I wasn't arguing semantics, I was asking a genuine question. The GPs reasons seemed to conflict with their apparent position. So rather than arguing against what I thought it said, I asked the question.
This isn't an an issue of semantics that you're trying to make it out to be - it's just not your business in the first place.