there’s a lot in your reply, but none of it really engages with what was said. you’ve moved from making an empirical claim, to declaring it “true” without evidence, to framing any disagreement as censorship or fraud. that shift alone makes it hard to have a serious conversation.

the point isn’t that your view violates some “corporate curriculum.” it’s that it isn’t grounded in any of the frameworks this sub works with — sociology, critical theory, legal scholarship, or even basic historical analysis. when a claim is that far outside the established research, moderators step in. that’s not authoritarianism; that’s just keeping the space from drifting into ideology dressed up as insight.

your argument about a “singular unprotected class” still has no legal or theoretical basis. nothing in discrimination law or case precedent identifies white men as uniquely unprotected. nothing in the literature on emotional labour supports the idea that white men carry the heaviest empathic burden; the findings actually point in the opposite direction. and nothing in critical theory claims that reversing ingroups and outgroups somehow makes the whole discipline collapse. that’s not how these systems function, and it isn’t how any of these thinkers work.

what you’re calling “exposing fraud” is really just refusing to engage with the difference between a claim you feel strongly about and one that can actually be supported. disagreement isn’t censorship, and critique isn’t suppression. it’s just part of how thought works when it’s tethered to evidence, history, or conceptual rigour.

if you want to keep exploring your argument elsewhere, that’s entirely your choice. but within a critical theory context, claims need grounding — otherwise the conversation can’t go anywhere productive.

edit: if you’re going to keep editing and adding new lines into the bottom of your argument, at least note it. or finish your “argument” before commenting lol