I know too little from the situation to take position - ET has prided itself to confront accepted truth and lies in all shapes and forms in a civilized manner and I'd like it to stay it like that.
You being offended is mysterious to me, and your refusal to engage antonymous also. As Colman said, simply based on antonymous's post I can't see a reason to troll it, although I'd say it's harshly worded and the arguments are unfounded by evidence. Asking for an immediate ban is not appropriate at this point.
Please tell us why you think it's nonsense.
A practising Buddhist revering the Dalai Lama, and a non-White to boot, seeing him accused in a reverse-racist context? His reaction is excessive by ET standards of stomaching strong disagreement, but certainly not mysterious. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Just trying to help, but if I'm setting things up for another race-centred argument, I'm out off here right now.
<sheesh> I didn't say there isn't. I tried to explain to you why someone like FarEasterner would be offended. That you don't find it offensive is entirely different matter. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I see it in the same way you seem to: Perceived discrimination on behalf of coloured people by white people / racism implied in coloured people by white people. Often for questionable reasons, but also potentially correct.
Off to sleep.
Another time I'll deal with my thoughts on (reverse) racism, because there's plenty for everyone where I live.
Now, clearly, there are nicer ways to put it than "prostrated himself before the White Man". It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
Presumably he lives in The WestTM, too, whatever that is. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
