>I didn't say anything about levels of how bad the different
>groups have had it. Yes this is not a one to one comparison on
>who has it worse - I don't think you can really compare that
>because it's a different thing. Also as a straight black man I
>am not as informed to even know everything the LGBT community
>has to deal with.

Right but you don't need to be intimately familiar with their struggles to know how different the two groups' situations were.


>But this is about the fact that bigotry and discrimination are
>WRONG in both cases, and it isn't unreasonable at all to
>expect at least an apology. The fact that something was done
>in the past when someone was young shouldn't be an excuse in
>either case.

This is where reading comprehension comes into play. I've said about 3 million times in here that Tribe's age nor the time period are an "excuse" nor do they afford them a pass for their disgusting bigotry. BUT, the context of their age and time period (being that homosexuality was MASSIVELY misunderstood by pretty much the entire planet at the time, as well as just the general attitude towards homosexuality within the hip-hop community as an extension of that) DOES provide some important detail as to why a group like Tribe, otherwise viewed as socially conscious and positive, might have thought it OK and acceptable to create a song like that AT THAT TIME. THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE THE BIGOTRY. It just provides some background. This isn't all that difficult to understand.

So, as it relates to your analogy, my point is that by 1991, while racism was (and is, in 2016) still very much alive in many pockets of the country, a white person, and specifically, a white rapper, would ABSOLUTELY have been well aware of how fucked up and wrong it would've been to create a song attacking the black community and using racial slurs. I don't really think the same can be said about a group/artist attacking the gay community because like I said, it was still largely a misunderstood human element at that time. And on top of that, the internet hadn't really taken hold yet so it's not like a misinformed/ignorant person could just go online and read about the fact that homosexuality is totally normal and natural, and not some biological disorder or whatever the fuck stupid people used to think it was.

Context is important, to this discussion in general and to your specific analogy. And the context makes your analogy a poor one. I see what you were getting at to an extent, all I'm saying is that it's way more nuanced than you presented it to be.