This is some properly multi-layered irony.
If hunters want to become an ethnic group then I guess I’m becoming a racist.
So, they were born fox hunters and came out of the womb with those ugly ass dated outfits, harnesses, saddles, horses, feed, etc etc…?
I mean, the look is actually good. Like the Nazis with their Hugo Boss uniforms. Criticize them for their actual problem: elitist animal cruelty. Boots and a little hat aren’t really a problem. Let them show off the outfit and parade around.
Disagree they look pompous and tool like
I’m with Doom.
Anyways, Nazis don’t look cool/good.
…Roma
And i don’t understand why they need protection in the first place.
They want protection from criticism. British hunting practices are… Horrific. Other countries have eliminated killing the fox as part of the event. Most of the world has shifted to you just ride around a field with some dogs and maybe you see the same fox you see every Thursday at 4pm and you go on the exact same chase with it you always do. In the UK? They murder that fox, and not humanely. By marking their “traditions” as ethnically derived, they become able to say criticizing them is a hate crime. Its… Really fucking stupid
killing the fox with your hounds is illegal in the UK from around 2005, as well it should be. I expect this law is broken as much as any other. I also assume that getting protected status is their starting point in attempting to get that law removed from the books.
Not that whatever the British hunters do isn’t worse. But putting the same animal through that tremendous stress just for the fun of it isn’t exactly what I’d describe as humane either.
Guess I’m about to commit a bunch of hate crimes, then.
deleted by creator
It’s the Telegraph, this naming isn’t unexpected.
For those reading, this is The Telegraph
Their whole fan base, as it were, is old Tories (conservatives) and angry old racists
Just fucking ignore it and don’t give them clicks
Campaigners say they have a good chance. Everyone else says they’re fucking morons.
The difference between all of the others–excepting religion–and hunting, is that the other statuses are ones that you have by virtue of being born, rather than through choices you make, or the way you’re raised. That is, you can’t choose the family that you’re born to, nor can you choose your sexual orientation. You choose to be a hunter though, and you can choose to not hunt. (Religion is much the same, but for some reason we’ve put religion on a different moral pedestal, even though it’s clearly a choice rather than inherent.)
Religion is not a choice in most instances where religious persecution actually becomes relevant.
In countries where Jews, or Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or members of any other religion are killed, displaced and oppressed, none of the oppressors ask how strong your faith actually is. You could actually have turned your back on your family’s religion, you’d still be lumped in with them.Religion is not a choice in most instances where religious persecution actually becomes relevant.
That’s not a realistic issue in England though; honor killings, etc. aren’t really a practical fear there, any more than getting murdered by Mormon Danites was for me when I left the Mormons. Yeah, you def. lose your family and friends, but that would also be the results I would have if I defected from rational thought to MAGA.
