I don't think there's really a burden of proof as such on anyone. Whether something qualifies or not will be a consensus in a given community, location, timeframe, etc.
There's quite a bit of substance behind the idea that it is problematic. (Already linked) But there will be nuance too.
> There's quite a bit of substance behind the idea that it is problematic. (Already linked)
There isn't substance, it's willful misinterpretation. The joke/hoax/op whatever you want to call it is -right there-. It isn't an attack on a racial or ethnic group, it's an attack on a political identity.
Is attacking liberals now considered "hate"?
They are telling you what they are doing and, as predicted, their opposition is willing to play along.
> Whether something qualifies or not will be a consensus in a given community, location, timeframe, etc.
> I feel like this statement is pretty sophomoric.
Come on, there's lots of examples for each. Location: fag (UK/US), timeframe: queer (reappropriation), community: see Kendrick Lamar / Delaney controversy.
There's quite a bit of substance behind the idea that it is problematic. (Already linked) But there will be nuance too.