Cultural Appropriation, sorta.

This post is just a side-thought of a bigger issue that I'll try to address later.

The basic idea behind cultural appropriation is that another culture, mainly whites, are misusing X culture to their own amusement, whether intentionally or not. By doing this it mocks X culture and therefore it is innately racist. What if we extend this misuse to the social institution of marriage?

In the earliest days, the concept of marriage was between a man and a woman, whether for procreative and/or real estate purposes. This distinct characteristic, a man and a woman, that forms what is widely known as marriage has been slowly changed to mean "between  X party and X party" in order to make room for same-sex pairings. Would this count as a form of cultural appropriation? Defenders of real marriage argue that same-sex "marriage" mocks the original constitutes of marriage that has been upheld for hundreds of years. But here's the catch. Arguments for supporting same-sex "marriage" say that marriage that does not allow two people of the same sex to get hitched to one another is not inclusive, while, say, the banning of a collegiate mascot or symbol that is deemed offensive is the "right thing to do." Statements by school representatives say that they want to be "inclusive", hence the banning of a school symbol or the taking down of a statue.

It can get confusing but that's the hilly reasoning. I'm still figuring out the definition of "inclusive" in both cases. One case is using to allow a certain form to exist; the other is generating feelings of non-offensiveness. The first case seems to be using the word correctly while the second shows up no where in the dictionaries I've referenced.

American Thinker: Hijacked or Editors actively Humping Trump

As I write this, on February 1, 2016, about every article published on this date questioning Donald Trump's merit and winning chances as the GOP nominee has been met with a "HTTP 404" message. 404 is basically an unknown link destination. Every article either neutral to Trump or in favor can be reached. I have the evidence.

Ed Lasky's "Trump screws everyone but himself."

And it goes on with other like-minded articles printed on February 1st.

All of these are met with the same 404 message.

Douglas Schwartz' "Trump Listens" is reachable. Bruce Walker's article is fine. Peggy Ryan, who has written mostly about supporting Trump (whose first AT article was about amnesty back in November 2014), "Trump or Cruz: Who Is the winning Quarterback?" works. Marie M. Kane's article entitled "Trump and the American Identity" is a valid link.

Other articles criticizing Hillary or any international affair is also a 404 victim. (Foreign policy not being Trump's forte.)