@BigOnionbean  
the only cringe here is you

@Background Pony #A079  
The zebra is a victim of the artist

I’m guessing this Zebra is a victim of some sort

The only change that will come of this is a larger rejection of future cringe like this…

I protest

…Not this sophistry again.

Cute, but if you’re the type of person who thinks violence is okay as long as it’s silencing “hate speech” (which is BS, as far as the SCOTUS is concerned), then you’re no better than a Nazi.
 
Of course, people who engage in political violence and hate crimes and the like need to be suppressed at every opportunity.
 
Also, holy shit. Didn’t know we were still stuck in May…

They aren’t gonna get far if they distance themselves from everyone else.

@ThrashStrings  
Marginalized people aren’t trying to “turn the tables” and reverse the power imbalance, we just want to be able to exist without all these things holding us back. I need to reiterate that what one side does to another is contextualized by the power (or lack thereof) each side has historically and institutionally. And we’re fighting for equity, which is not the same as equality (Equity; understanding that what each person needs to live and succeed is different based on their circumstances vs. Equality; giving everyone the same regardless of each person’s varying needs.)
 
That aside, historically the fight for civil rights were not won by politeness and good graces. They were won by protests, marches, turmoil, and holding the majority’s profits and way of life hostage until those rights were granted. Think back to the power dynamic at play. When one side has the power to decide the other side’s rights, they can promise those rights conditionally because they have the power to do that, and then just decide not to give it anyway, because they have the power to do that, too! We as the minority don’t have the power to hold them accountible for their promises. We can do the song and dance for our entire lives and our rights may never move an inch if the ones in power think it’s more convenient, comfortable, or especially profitable not to give us our rights.

@Pashoo  
I fully understand your point, however, it is still defending a crime. If you want certain imbalance and/or inequality to be put right, as the minority, oppressed side, you need to make sure you are not going to just turn the tables upside down. Basically, if you want people to be good and respectful, you ought to make sure you are good and respectful yourself. Otherwise, what credibility on saying what is right and wrong do you have?  
That exact reason is why many people turn closer to racist ideologies in the current situation. When the people who ask for acceptance and equality of opportunities, aren’t accepting, show clearly racist behaviour, and often demand inequality on their end to produce equality of outcome, why would the other side turn their mind around? And they don’t, and both left- and right-wing go even further from each other, which leads to more anger and disagreement.

@Bananas  
This was only posted here to trigger the Nazi’s so it being divisive is proof that it succeeded.

I don’t carry coins on me.

@ThrashStrings  
The important thing is to think about these issues with regards to existing power structures and how those relate to these groups. Frustration and lashing out from marginalized people does not hold the same weight as the group in power continuing to enforce those power dynamics.
 
Case in point black americans have historically and also now continue to face difficulties from the American legal and justice systems. They’re still dealing with the lasting effects of historical suppression. Some of those issues are being actively maintained and continued, and they’re not going to go away unless they’re addressed because there are groups in power who stand to benefit from the continuation of that imbalance in power. Trying to fix these problems also means that the people who stand to benefit from these issues need to be held accountable, which in this case is white people, who benefit from the suppression of black people whether they actually want to or not, or are aware that they’re even doing it in the first place.
 
The point I’m trying to get at is that is that the idea that both sides are equally as bad is not true, not when each side is on opposite ends of a power imbalance. Insulting a white person is shitty but it’s not perpetuating a history of oppression, and holding a group that’s in power accountible is definitely not the same as intolerance. Conversely, racism against a black person draws upon a history of continuing oppression.
 
(Obviously that doesn’t absolve marginalized groups from any wrongdoing whatsoever, but these issues have to be understood in the broader context and not as a strictly interpersonal issue.)

@Background Pony #C81D  
In a general outlook, by punishing the hate and intolerance towards one group, while accepting hate and intolerance towards the other due to historical background that doesn’t necessarily affect the given individual.
 
Or in more specific examples; making the sentence “These blacks (or another racist form towards dark-skinned ethnicities) are terrible” unacceptable and punishable, while accepting a reverse “These whites (or another racist form towards bright-skinned ethnicities) are terrible” due to the historical racist crimes of the “western” society. Both forms should be unacceptable, however due to those movements, we create tolerance towards racism to a different ethnicity. Racism doesn’t come from just one side; neither does sexism for that matter. One side may be more vocal than the other, but it shouldn’t make the other’s racial hate acceptable.