It is, although she's paraphrasing Johnson 1997, who made an valid argument that given the historical context of oppression of minority groups, they should be considered somewhat more valid in their prejudice of the majority - having been on the receiving end.

Of course, Johnson was referring to a generation that grew up in the 70s and 80s, and before (and in the USA) - when concepts such as **** Bashing and gay bashing were considered acceptable past times.

Johnson believed that we should forgive such prejudice against the majority - and that as such, talking about such prejudice was a means of deflecting by those who provided tacit support of prejudice, away from the true argument, the experience of prejudice of those minority groups (which was often violent, physical, persistant and socially exclusive).

Of course Johnson also believed such prejudice was wrong, but understandable, given the society of the times. Certainly not all factions agreed. Chuck D of Public Enemy openly criticized the use of the phrase nigga by rappers arguing that it reduced the struggle of anti-racism, by creating a stereotype that was ultimately an anti-black propaganda.

Of course if you're actually attending university, which has actively recruited you as a spokesperson and advocate for a minority group, and funded that position - You do have to question just exactly how oppressed you are.

But there are still plenty of very stupid narrow minded bigots out there. Sadly, they exist on both sides of the fence.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Diversity?' by SloveniaDave

Such statements are a crime these days are they not ?

When will people realise that equality is often a euphemism for self interest. Equally, these people do the movement for real equality no good at all.
It is ironic because Britain is one of the most "equal" societies in the world and we have allowed people who's own culture rejects womems rights and promotes homophobia to have a voice in our society.
You dozy liberal/left types can't see the wood for the trees can you.

Personally speaking, as a "liberal/left type", as I have already posted,I think she is a jerk.

You are right that seeking "equality" can on occasion be a euphemism for self-interest,ie on occasion when seeking a job promotion at work.Just as voicing concern about immigration can on occasion be a euphemism for racism,or voicing support for reducing the defecit can be a euphemism for rolling back the welfare state for ideological reasons,or a wealthy person calling for lower taxes as a matter of supposed general interest "wealth creation" trickle down can be a euphemism for self-interest

The "dozy" ones (who often are those who really can't see the wood from the trees) can perhaps more accurately be described as those who use any example regarding an individual or a minority within a wider group to seek to tar the whole group with a negative brush,whether it be in relation to benefit claimants,people from a differing culture, all adherents of a particular religion,the HF or anything else.

Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 1.17am)

For those who say they would, have a look at the photo in the Metro and you'll probably change your mind

[Link]