The right kind of racism?

[horsefly 4,301]

When I was a lecturer an Asian student who I got on very well with disclosed to me that she had been raped late at night on the university car park. Given her specific cultural background she felt she could not say anything about the dreadful incident to her husband or any of her family. The trauma she was clearly suffering left me feeling powerless as to know what to do. Thus I contacted the rape crisis centre to get some advice. When I asked if I could come along with her to the centre to provide support I was very firmly told no. They explained to me that for very obvious reasons this was a women only space. Was I offended? Did I think this was an impertinent imposition on my equal rights as a man? Obviously not. The reasons for such a policy were indisputable. The current dispute over the slavery play are nowhere near as awful as the hideous event I just relayed. However, the explanation for why they have chosen to reserve two performances for black only audiences exists on the same axis of sensitivity. Not far enough up that axis to ban white people from all performances in the way that it is justifiable to ban all men from a women's rape crisis centre. 

[horsefly 4,301]

13 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Carry on defending the indefensible.

Hahahaha! Are you sure you're not a spoof account?

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Another one bravely deciding to now nail his/her hypocritical colours

to the mast, having seen that some of his/her ideological bedfellows have done likewise.

I haven't changed my mind but just acknowledge the arguments come from a place of sensitivity not superiority (i.e. not the usual form of racism).

Anyway. Yawn. Only fools argue with fools.

[Naturalcynic 631]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

When I was a lecturer an Asian student who I got on very well with disclosed to me that she had been raped late at night on the university car park. Given her specific cultural background she felt she could not say anything about the dreadful incident to her husband or any of her family. The trauma she was clearly suffering left me feeling powerless as to know what to do. Thus I contacted the rape crisis centre to get some advice. When I asked if I could come along with her to the centre to provide support I was very firmly told no. They explained to me that for very obvious reasons this was a women only space. Was I offended? Did I think this was an impertinent imposition on my equal rights as a man? Obviously not. The reasons for such a policy were indisputable. The current dispute over the slavery play are nowhere near as awful as the hideous event I just relayed. However, the explanation for why they have chosen to reserve two performances for black only audiences exists on the same axis of sensitivity. Not far enough up that axis to ban white people from all performances in the way that it is justifiable to ban all men from a women's rape crisis centre. 

Absolute cobblers.  A theatre is not a rape crisis centre and no black person living in the UK has been a victim of historic slavery.  Totally false equivalence to try to defend the indefensible.

[Naturalcynic 631]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I haven't changed my mind but just acknowledge the arguments come from a place of sensitivity not superiority (i.e. not the usual form of racism).

Anyway. Yawn. Only fools argue with fools.

What makes you so sure of that?  Personally I consider that to be claptrap.  

Edited March 1 by Naturalcynic

[Naturalcynic 631]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Hahahaha! Are you sure you're not a spoof account?

Hahahaha!  Are you sure you were a university lecturer?  Actually, given some of the rather extreme stuff you come out with on here, you probably were a university lecturer.

Edited March 1 by Naturalcynic

[horsefly 4,301]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

As I said in the title to the thread, perhaps this is considered by some to be the right sort of racism, an acceptable version of discrimination on the grounds of skin colour.  Personally I think any mealy-mouthed attempt at justification is plain double standards, unless of course they’d also support the idea of, for example, whites only nights in restaurants, or boarding houses saying no blacks, no dogs, no Irish.

Utter tripe! On what grounds would there be a reason to have whites only nights in restaurants? what prejudiced based trauma related issues are raised by the environment of a restaurant? Pathetic whataboutery nonsense. The grounds for 2 nights of black only audiences in a play about slavery have been very clearly articulated and only opaque to those without the willingness to attempt an understanding.

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

Hahahaha!  Are you sure you were a university lecturer?  Actually, given some of the rather extreme stuff you come out with on here, you probably were a university lecturer.

So the man that constantly whines on about being a victim of abuse has nothing material to say in response to the issues raised but just offers sneering abusive ad hominem attacks.

[horsefly 4,301]

7 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Absolute cobblers.  A theatre is not a rape crisis centre and no black person living in the UK has been a victim of historic slavery.  Totally false equivalence to try to defend the indefensible.

And still not a single attempt to answer any of the questions. Just your standard bigoted lashing out at a challenge to your set beliefs.

[Herman 9,779]

16 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Ah, so you’re putting your head above the parapet now that some others have.

No. I still don't agree with it but have a better understanding as explained. Listening to the brilliant views from people of differing black communities really helped and something I would ask you to do. 

[Naturalcynic 631]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So the man that constantly whines on about being a victim of abuse has nothing material to say in response to the issues raised but just offers sneering abusive ad hominem attacks.

I don’t whine on about being the victim of anything, but my comment above was a direct reply to you suggesting that I am, in fact, a spoof account.

[Herman 9,779]

19 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I haven't changed my mind but just acknowledge the arguments come from a place of sensitivity not superiority (i.e. not the usual form of racism).

Anyway. Yawn. Only fools argue with fools.

I think we are pretty much on the same page. 👍

[Naturalcynic 631]

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And still not a single attempt to answer any of the questions. Just your standard bigoted lashing out at a challenge to your set beliefs.

Would you support a couple of white only performances so that the audience could reflect, away from the black gaze, on the historic injustices that their distant ancestors might have committed?

[Naturalcynic 631]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

I think we are pretty much on the same page. 👍

I often wonder if you’re pretty much the same person! 

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

I think we are pretty much on the same page. 👍

Yes. You can't distinguish between people on grounds of race or skin colour or even religion however well meaning. Treat all people equally. That doesn't preclude expecting sensitivity to the feelings of others (i.e. be respectful of others beliefs so no need to be Quran or Bible burning!). 

The only obvious exceptions is in medicine where certain peoples may have certain genetic predilections to various diseases which will inform any presentation as to what to check for first!

[horsefly 4,301]

44 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Ah, so you’re putting your head above the parapet now that some others have.

 

42 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Another one bravely deciding to now nail his/her hypocritical colours to the mast, having seen that some of his/her ideological bedfellows have done likewise.

You've misunderstood being a cynic for being a nasty git.

[Naturalcynic 631]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

 

You've misunderstood being a cynic for being a nasty git.

Thanks for that.  Very kind sentiment, and not at all nasty of you to say it.

[Fen Canary 829]

7 hours ago, sonyc said:

I am pleased someone has said the kind of thing I was feeling reading that. As someone who has been subject to racism many times (and continue to be....from time to time...the sort people rarely talk about - darker skinned against lighter skinned) then I tried to put myself in the minds of that audience. I find it uncomfortable as a white person, and I am quite sure I would even feel slightly threatened by it if I was not only reading this but stood outside the theatre. It doesn't make it 'right'. But nor do I think it is so 'wrong'.

My core point (before the usuals jump on me) is that don't we all want to live with and amongst people who are like us? Where we live, which circles we socialise with (which have the closest fit with us culturally and psychologically)? As Norwich fans we don't wish to be with away fans on the whole (unless you attend a Rugby League match and you're all together and give each other banter which never or rarely gets personal). We feel comfortable amongst our own (and those with similar political views).

This may not even be about white people. What it is about is power (I think). It is challenging ("we can do this now"). For decades black people have had little voice.That much is clear. The same for women (golf clubs and so on). 

Perhaps the book "White Frailty" is a useful source. Paper thin skins. 

I don't like this kind of thing but there we are. Am I only of such a minority position who believes there is a (massive) context surely?

 

There’s a big difference between choosing to live amongst others of your own background or ethnicity, and positively excluding other ethnicities from public spaces and performances. One is simply a personal preference you’re free to make in a free society, the other is racist and no better than the American segregation policies of the past 

[Fen Canary 829]

5 hours ago, horsefly said:

Sadly, but predictably the usual unimaginative bigots are seeking to exploit division rather than show understanding of the lives and perspectives of others who have been victims of prejudice.

I assume your accusation of bigotry is aimed at those who have enacted a segregationist policy for the audience of this play modern Britain, rather than those who oppose it such a measure? Having seperate nights for events based on skin colour is the sort of nonsense policy I’d expect to see in the manifesto of the BNP

[Fen Canary 829]

4 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Absolute cobblers.  A theatre is not a rape crisis centre and no black person living in the UK has been a victim of historic slavery.  Totally false equivalence to try to defend the indefensible.

I’ll wager Horsey will now try and justify the right of trans women (biological males) to work in the rape crisis centre, despite just just now saying he understands why males should be excluded from them. However I agree, trying to link a rape centre with a racist policy of segregation is scraping the barrel somewhat 

[Fen Canary 829]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

And still not a single attempt to answer any of the questions. Just your standard bigoted lashing out at a challenge to your set beliefs.

A woman who has been raped is in a vulnerable situation, mentally and physically, and as such having a female only centre is a perfectly understandable idea. Separating the general public by skin colour however is in no way the same. Trying to equate the trauma of rape today with the slave trade that finished around 200 years ago as an analogy simply doesn’t work 

[sonyc 5,526]

44 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

There’s a big difference between choosing to live amongst others of your own background or ethnicity, and positively excluding other ethnicities from public spaces and performances. One is simply a personal preference you’re free to make in a free society, the other is racist and no better than the American segregation policies of the past 

Yep, can accept that. My point is that I can understand the issue (quite distinct from therefore agreeing with it). If we don't try and debate and discuss things then all that results is a divisiveness, a dislike of others, a hardening of positions.

There's some rotten people about in all societies. This subject has been raised deliberately to create a divide (see the OP) in order to bate people. Having a view on it for debate therefore is not the aim. 

Ironic that Sunak has just spoken at length about reasonable and responsible behaviour. I and happy to respond to you however because despite having quite different views on lots of things (not all) you're civil and respectful. 

Galloway's election today is a very bad thing. Saw how he managed in Bradford way back. He loves to create enemies and stoke hatred. He did nothing then and he won't in Rochdale.  That said, he will be out at the GE later in the year.

[Naturalcynic 631]

8 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yep, can accept that. My point is that I can understand the issue (quite distinct from therefore agreeing with it). If we don't try and debate and discuss things then all that results is a divisiveness, a dislike of others, a hardening of positions.

There's some rotten people about in all societies. This subject has been raised deliberately to create a divide (see the OP) in order to bate people. Having a view on it for debate therefore is not the aim. 

Ironic that Sunak has just spoken at length about reasonable and responsible behaviour. I and happy to respond to you however because despite having quite different views on lots of things (not all) you're civil and respectful. 

Galloway's election today is a very bad thing. Saw how he managed in Bradford way back. He loves to create enemies and stoke hatred. He did nothing then and he won't in Rochdale.  That said, he will be out at the GE later in the year.

That’s a bit harsh.  After all, most people who start a thread have an opinion on the subject, and it’s not as if I’m a prolific initiator of new subjects.  And a debate is exactly what is taking place.  

[sonyc 5,526]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

That’s a bit harsh.  After all, most people who start a thread have an opinion on the subject, and it’s not as if I’m a prolific initiator of new subjects.  And a debate is exactly what is taking place.  

It's not though is it? It is about labelling people. The whole premise was to divide....I suppose that's my opinion. The reason I say that is because the way your post was put together meant that if you disagreed with it then one must be 'wrong'. I couldn't give a damn about the right kind or wrong kind of racism. Racism is just racism.

That's fair enough if that's the route you're taking.

Even my take about understanding the context of it was commented on by you. It didn't leave much room for a riposte.  Another called me dangerous. That's where we are now. Whatever I would say would just be wrong in some people's eyes. I thought my comments were at the very least thoughtful. I didn't just write one sentence and insult then cower away.

What's the point ever discussing stuff on these threads? People are so fixed in their views. It's become like an adult playground. We know what everyone's views are. It's not like there is much room for change or influence.

'So what' tends to be my viewpoint for most stuff. There's more to life than the sadness of angry insults that this place has become. It's become a home for bitterness. Whatever I say will in all honesty not be of any benefit or add anything useful so I may as well just let folk fill their time with it all. I have no intention of taking a side just to insult or p1ss on others. Race, money, politics etc are not subjects that easily lend themselves to considerate debate. You can't say anything without being judged either. Say anything on the Gaza thread and you're labelled. Just one example. 

I suppose people like the fight and the sparring. Fair enough.

[Fen Canary 829]

36 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yep, can accept that. My point is that I can understand the issue (quite distinct from therefore agreeing with it). If we don't try and debate and discuss things then all that results is a divisiveness, a dislike of others, a hardening of positions.

There's some rotten people about in all societies. This subject has been raised deliberately to create a divide (see the OP) in order to bate people. Having a view on it for debate therefore is not the aim. 

Ironic that Sunak has just spoken at length about reasonable and responsible behaviour. I and happy to respond to you however because despite having quite different views on lots of things (not all) you're civil and respectful. 

Galloway's election today is a very bad thing. Saw how he managed in Bradford way back. He loves to create enemies and stoke hatred. He did nothing then and he won't in Rochdale.  That said, he will be out at the GE later in the year.

I disagree, I think it’s a very slippery slope. If you allow one form of discrimination to occur, even if you believe it to be well intentioned, can you really complain if other groups then want the same right to discriminate against certain groups?

Do you allow Muslims to refuse to serve Jews due to Palestine, of or religious people to exclude homosexuals in an attempt to change their sinful lifestyle and save them from eternal damnation? I simply think it’s much better for society if all discrimination is banned, whatever their reasons for wanting to do so, because if you allow some but not others who gets to decide which are ok and which are not?

I agree about Galloway, I think he’s a clown. Hopefully it’s merely a backlash against current foreign policy rather than the start of sectarian voting patterns that are common elsewhere throughout the world. The Balkanisation of British politics would be much more dangerous than the general incompetence of Labour and the Tories 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

12 hours ago, horsefly said:

When I was a lecturer an Asian student who I got on very well with disclosed to me that she had been raped late at night on the university car park. Given her specific cultural background she felt she could not say anything about the dreadful incident to her husband or any of her family. The trauma she was clearly suffering left me feeling powerless as to know what to do. Thus I contacted the rape crisis centre to get some advice. When I asked if I could come along with her to the centre to provide support I was very firmly told no. They explained to me that for very obvious reasons this was a women only space. Was I offended? Did I think this was an impertinent imposition on my equal rights as a man? Obviously not. The reasons for such a policy were indisputable. The current dispute over the slavery play are nowhere near as awful as the hideous event I just relayed. However, the explanation for why they have chosen to reserve two performances for black only audiences exists on the same axis of sensitivity. Not far enough up that axis to ban white people from all performances in the way that it is justifiable to ban all men from a women's rape crisis centre. 

Conflating rape with a stage play is mega level of stupidity

[horsefly 4,301]

The ludicrousness of the far-right buffoons on this thread is as hilarious as it is pathetic. Spittle-flecked old white men expressing faux outrage that they are to be excluded from just 2 performances of a play about the evils of slavery that they would never have considered attending in a million years. The very personification of disingenuous frauds desperate to find a cause to vent some hate of minorities.

[Naturalcynic 631]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The ludicrousness of the far-right buffoons on this thread is as hilarious as it is pathetic. Spittle-flecked old white men expressing faux outrage that they are to be excluded from just 2 performances of a play about the evils of slavery that they would never have considered attending in a million years. The very personification of disingenuous frauds desperate to find a cause to vent some hate of minorities.

To paraphrase slightly, if the left didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

[horsefly 4,301]

15 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ll wager Horsey will now try and justify the right of trans women (biological males) to work in the rape crisis centre, despite just just now saying he understands why males should be excluded from them. However I agree, trying to link a rape centre with a racist policy of segregation is scraping the barrel somewhat 

Pathetic! Try reading what I ACTUALLY said instead of desperately trying to excuse your ignorance. I purposely DID NOT conflate rape with racism. The point of the analogy was a very simple one (not simple enough for you and the other far-right buffoons of course), that there are social contexts in which it is entirely justifiable to exclude certain people from a venue. Nothing more, nothing less was implied by what I said. Certainly NOT the deliberate and utterly disingenuous tripe concocted by the usual suspects that I was claiming rape is the same as racism. I note that NONE of you answered the question I posed about whether it would be justifiable to exclude men from performances on a play dealing with rape. But that is a lot harder for you than when it comes to pushing your faux outrage about so-called black racism.

[horsefly 4,301]

8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Conflating rape with a stage play is mega level of stupidity

Thanks for proving how dumb you are