The right kind of racism?

[Fen Canary 829]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

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.

Is this how you conducted your lectures? If any students had a different point of view you threw a hissy fit and peppered them with personal insults? Perhaps that’s why you don’t teach anymore.

To answer your question, no it wouldn’t be justifiable to exclude men from a play about rape. What possible justification can there be for segregation of audiences based on sex or ethnicity simply due to the content material of a play? Should I not be allowed to view things of which I have no direct experience?

I never thought I’d see the day when somebody who claims to be of the left argues in favour of segregation based on sex and skin colour! 

 

[horsefly 4,301]

On 02/03/2024 at 16:40, Fen Canary said:

Is this how you conducted your lectures? If any students had a different point of view you threw a hissy fit and peppered them with personal insults? Perhaps that’s why you don’t teach anymore.

To answer your question, no it wouldn’t be justifiable to exclude men from a play about rape. What possible justification can there be for segregation of audiences based on sex or ethnicity simply due to the content material of a play? Should I not be allowed to view things of which I have no direct experience?

I never thought I’d see the day when somebody who claims to be of the left argues in favour of segregation based on sex and skin colour! 

 

This is not a university forum. I'm retired. I have no need to waste time soft-soaping far-right bigots who are not remotely interested in seeking understanding through an actual conversation about the issues, but only wish to reassert and promote their deeply ingrained prejudices and hatreds. I am under no obligation to consider your hurt feelings in that process, and as such I'm very happy to expose such ignorance in direct language. If you're too much of a "snowflake" to cope I suggest you block my posts

Your pathetic ill-informed response is the perfect example. White people HAVE NOT BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS PLAY. Just 2 performances have been reserved for black only audiences . It's a simple recognition of the fact that some people whose ancestors were murdered, raped, and exploited by white people would rather not share an audience with the race of people whose ancestors committed those disgusting crimes. Any white person with a genuine disgust at what our ancestors did to black Africans ought not to find it a struggle to understand such feelings, and schedule their attendance at a play they are so desperate to see on one of the many days when they are welcomed. 

The fact that you don't think it would be legitimate to schedule women only audiences for a play about rape, tells us an awful lot about your attitude to women who have been victims of such a depraved crime. Even in courts of law women are given the option of prerecording their evidence so they can avoid giving their evidence in the presence of the accused man. The thought that it would be some kind of outrage to exclude men from some audiences so that victims of sexual assault might have a chance to watch a play without the presence of men shows extraordinary lack of sensitivity and understanding.

 

[Fen Canary 829]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

This is not a university forum. I'm retired. I have no need to waste time soft-soaping far-right bigots who are not remotely interested in seeking understanding through an actual conversation about the issues, but only wish to reassert and promote their deeply ingrained prejudices and hatreds. I am under no obligation to consider your hurt feelings in that process, and as such I'm very happy to expose such ignorance in direct language. If you're too much of a "snowflake" to cope I suggest you block my posts

Your pathetic ill-informed response is the perfect example. White people HAVE NOT BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS PLAY. Just 2 performances have been reserved for black only audiences . It's a simple recognition of the fact that some people whose ancestors were murdered, raped, and exploited by white people would rather not share an audience with the race of people whose ancestors committed those disgusting crimes. Any white person with a genuine disgust at what our ancestors did to black Africans ought not to find it a struggle to understand such feelings, and schedule their attendance at a play they are so desperate to see on one of the many days when they are welcomed. 

The fact that you don't think it would be legitimate to schedule women only audiences for a play about rape, tells us an awful lot about your attitude to women who have been victims of such a depraved crime. Even in courts of law women are given the option of prerecording their evidence so they can avoid giving their evidence in the presence of the accused man. The thought that it would be some kind of outrage to exclude men from some audiences so that victims of sexual assault might have a chance to watch a play without the presence of men shows extraordinary lack of sensitivity and understanding.

 

You really are a pathetic bitter old man aren’t you? You’re unable to talk to anybody who has a differing opinion about any subject without resorting to childish personal insults.

It must be so comforting to think of yourself so morally superior to everybody else, that your opinion is the only one that matters 

[horsefly 4,301]

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

You really are a pathetic bitter old man aren’t you? You’re unable to talk to anybody who has a differing opinion about any subject without resorting to childish personal insults.

It must be so comforting to think of yourself so morally superior to everybody else, that your opinion is the only one that matters 

Hilarious! The man who whines about abuse starts his post with, "You really are a pathetic bitter old man aren’t you?". You have NOTHING intelligent to say. Just your usual ad hominem cra*p, and uniformed prejudice. Not a single word in response to the substantive points I just raised.  I rest my case.

[Naturalcynic 631]

21 minutes ago, horsefly said:

This is not a university forum. I'm retired. I have no need to waste time soft-soaping far-right bigots who are not remotely interested in seeking understanding through an actual conversation about the issues, but only wish to reassert and promote their deeply ingrained prejudices and hatreds. I am under no obligation to consider your hurt feelings in that process, and as such I'm very happy to expose such ignorance in direct language. If you're too much of a "snowflake" to cope I suggest you block my posts

Your pathetic ill-informed response is the perfect example. White people HAVE NOT BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS PLAY. Just 2 performances have been reserved for black only audiences . It's a simple recognition of the fact that some people whose ancestors were murdered, raped, and exploited by white people would rather not share an audience with the race of people whose ancestors committed those disgusting crimes. Any white person with a genuine disgust at what our ancestors did to black Africans ought not to find it a struggle to understand such feelings, and schedule their attendance at a play they are so desperate to see on one of the many days when they are welcomed. 

The fact that you don't think it would be legitimate to schedule women only audiences for a play about rape, tells us an awful lot about your attitude to women who have been victims of such a depraved crime. Even in courts of law women are given the option of prerecording their evidence so they can avoid giving their evidence in the presence of the accused man. The thought that it would be some kind of outrage to exclude men from some audiences so that victims of sexual assault might have a chance to watch a play without the presence of men shows extraordinary lack of sensitivity and understanding.

 

Yet another bitter and pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.  I say yet again, no black person in the UK has been the victim of historic slavery.  These manufactured grievances surrounding events that happened many generations ago are the result of the rise of race-obsessed and divisive identity politics that people like you promote.

[A Load of Squit 5,170]

59 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Yet another bitter and pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.  I say yet again, no black person in the UK has been the victim of historic slavery.  These manufactured grievances surrounding events that happened many generations ago are the result of the rise of race-obsessed and divisive identity politics that people like you promote.

Your're promoting it by being so outraged that you started a post about it.

If you'd have said "Yeh, whatever" and got on with your life we wouldn't have had 3 pages of squabbling over something most people have forgotten about.

[Herman 9,779]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Yet another bitter and pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.  I say yet again, no black person in the UK has been the victim of historic slavery.  These manufactured grievances surrounding events that happened many generations ago are the result of the rise of race-obsessed and divisive identity politics that people like you promote.

Nothing is ever as simple as you would wish.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/mar/06/complex-emotions-harewood-house-commissions-portrait-of-david-harewood

[Naturalcynic 631]

46 minutes ago, Herman said:

Nothing is ever as simple as you would wish.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/mar/06/complex-emotions-harewood-house-commissions-portrait-of-david-harewood

And?  I traced my family history and found that almost without exception my ancestors toiled in the fields as agricultural labourers, spent their days in stifling heat and darkness in the coal mines, or worked unrelentingly in the woollen mills, all in appalling conditions for precious little reward and no safety net of sickness payment or, even if they survived long enough, any form of pension.  Does that mean I should bear a grievance against the wealthy employers who exploited them?  

[Herman 9,779]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

And?  I traced my family history and found that almost without exception my ancestors toiled in the fields as agricultural labourers, spent their days in stifling heat and darkness in the coal mines, or worked unrelentingly in the woollen mills, all in appalling conditions for precious little reward and no safety net of sickness payment or, even if they survived long enough, any form of pension.  Does that mean I should bear a grievance against the wealthy employers who exploited them?  

Yes, you should and you should also look up the phrase "false equivalence" too. 👍

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

7 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

And?  I traced my family history and found that almost without exception my ancestors toiled in the fields as agricultural labourers, spent their days in stifling heat and darkness in the coal mines, or worked unrelentingly in the woollen mills, all in appalling conditions for precious little reward and no safety net of sickness payment or, even if they survived long enough, any form of pension.  Does that mean I should bear a grievance against the wealthy employers who exploited them?  

Without doubt it would have been very tough work down the mines and in the newly built factories but we have to remember people chose to leave the land and go to work in the cities, not because someone forced them, but because the pay was better than in agriculture. It still happens today in the developing world, people leaving the land to work in factories and higher incomes. In a few generations they are challenging the developed world - Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China all countries in progress. Interestingly, none of those countries are asking for reparations. Such demands only come from those with victim mindsets

[Fen Canary 829]

I’m going to request that at least one game a season at Carrow Road is reserved solely for those with Anglo Saxon surnames such as myself, anybody vaguely French or Scandinavian sounding should be turned away at the turnstiles.

My ancestors were treated appallingly by the Vikings and Normans, and I don’t feel safe or comfortable sharing a stadium with their  descendants. There is at least 23 other home matches a season these other people can attend so they should schedule their attendance at one of the many other games they’ll be welcomed. 

[Herman 9,779]

☝️☝️☝️

Old white guys that cheered for brexit and more than likely voted for Blukips. Should we take their views on slavery seriously?

No is the right answer.

[Fen Canary 829]

12 minutes ago, Herman said:

☝️☝️☝️

Old white guys that cheered for brexit and more than likely voted for Blukips. Should we take their views on slavery seriously?

No is the right answer.

I’ll wager I’m younger than you. But even if I wasn’t, why do you feel you can simply dismiss peoples opinions because their life experiences mean they see the world differently to yourself?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

40 minutes ago, Herman said:

☝️☝️☝️

Old white guys that cheered for brexit and more than likely voted for Blukips. Should we take their views on slavery seriously?

No is the right answer.

Ignorant white guys who cheer in support of fools vandalising memorials to dead people . Should we take their views on anything seriously?

No is the right answer.

[Herman 9,779]

26 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ll wager I’m younger than you. But even if I wasn’t, why do you feel you can simply dismiss peoples opinions because their life experiences mean they see the world differently to yourself?

When people aren't in the slightest bit interested in looking a bit deeper at a story and the stories of the people involved then it is easier to dismiss than take their opinions seriously.

[Fen Canary 829]

22 minutes ago, Herman said:

When people aren't in the slightest bit interested in looking a bit deeper at a story and the stories of the people involved then it is easier to dismiss than take their opinions seriously.

Because I disagree that it’s ok to segregate audiences by skin colour that means I haven’t looked sufficiently at the story? Are you suggesting that if I looked deeper (whatever that means) then I’d automatically have the same opinion as yourself? That my opinions are based solely on ignorance and nothing else?

Who gets to decide which black people are allowed to sit in the audience and which aren’t? Are those whose descent is from African countries that avoided slavery, or worse were actively involved in the capturing and selling of slaves to the colonials also banned from those nights? How about those who are mixed race with a black Caribbean dad and white mum? Can they only watch the first half?

Would those black people, so traumatised by the slave trade that ended 200 years ago that they can’t watch a play with white people (despite seemingly living and working with plenty of them) also feel the same way about those from North African countries who were just as complicit as the European powers?

Would white people from countries who played no part in the slave trade be permitted to watch?

Are white people affected by the various Islamist terrorist attacks justified in asking for no Muslim nights at various performances? Should the Irish be banned from certain events to protect the feelings of those who lost loved ones during the Troubles?

[Herman 9,779]

13 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Because I disagree that it’s ok to segregate audiences by skin colour that means I haven’t looked sufficiently at the story? Are you suggesting that if I looked deeper (whatever that means) then I’d automatically have the same opinion as yourself? That my opinions are based solely on ignorance and nothing else?

Who gets to decide which black people are allowed to sit in the audience and which aren’t? Are those whose descent is from African countries that avoided slavery, or worse were actively involved in the capturing and selling of slaves to the colonials also banned from those nights? How about those who are mixed race with a black Caribbean dad and white mum? Can they only watch the first half?

Would those black people, so traumatised by the slave trade that ended 200 years ago that they can’t watch a play with white people (despite seemingly living and working with plenty of them) also feel the same way about those from North African countries who were just as complicit as the European powers?

Would white people from countries who played no part in the slave trade be permitted to watch?

Are white people affected by the various Islamist terrorist attacks justified in asking for no Muslim nights at various performances? Should the Irish be banned from certain events to protect the feelings of those who lost loved ones during the Troubles?

If you actually bothered to read other opinions you'd probably find that I don't agree with it. My dislike of discrimination, negative and positive, stops me from getting behind this idea. But I did take the time to look and listen at other views to see what it was actually about.

[horsefly 4,301]

On 09/03/2024 at 09:06, Naturalcynic said:

Yet another bitter and pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.  I say yet again, no black person in the UK has been the victim of historic slavery.  These manufactured grievances surrounding events that happened many generations ago are the result of the rise of race-obsessed and divisive identity politics that people like you promote.

Bigoted banal bilge as usual. At least we can rely on your consistency.

[horsefly 4,301]

On 09/03/2024 at 19:29, Fen Canary said:

I’m going to request that at least one game a season at Carrow Road is reserved solely for those with Anglo Saxon surnames such as myself, anybody vaguely French or Scandinavian sounding should be turned away at the turnstiles.

My ancestors were treated appallingly by the Vikings and Normans, and I don’t feel safe or comfortable sharing a stadium with their  descendants. There is at least 23 other home matches a season these other people can attend so they should schedule their attendance at one of the many other games they’ll be welcomed. 

An utterly idiotic and ridiculous analogy demonstrating your ignorance. Each performance of a play follows exactly the same script. Football matches don't. Grow up!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

An utterly idiotic and ridiculous analogy demonstrating your ignorance. Each performance of a play follows exactly the same script. Football matches don't. Grow up!

It's idiotic and ridiculous, but also an excellent comparison to people sitting in an audience who might feel uncomfortable because people with another skin colour are there. It very well illustrates how idiotic the theatre's announcement was, but unfortunately the political climate encouraged by people like yourself encourages this sort of divisive and polarising approach; ironically, it's an example of minorities apparently wanting apartheid.

Edited March 11 by littleyellowbirdie

[Naturalcynic 631]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

Bigoted banal bilge as usual. At least we can rely on your consistency.

Oh dear, all you can come back with is the tired old “bigoted” epithet which is so excessively and inappropriately used by people such as you that it is rendered meaningless.

[Fen Canary 829]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

An utterly idiotic and ridiculous analogy demonstrating your ignorance. Each performance of a play follows exactly the same script. Football matches don't. Grow up!

Ok, swap Carrow Road for a film at the local cinema then. I want a day set aside simply for those that have Saxon surnames, that way nobody will be potentially missing something unique. Is that a better analogy? 

[Barbe bleu 827]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Ok, swap Carrow Road for a film at the local cinema then. I want a day set aside simply for those that have Saxon surnames, that way nobody will be potentially missing something unique. Is that a better analogy? 

Ill let you into a secret...No one on here really disagrees with you on this.  Save your efforts or you'll miss out on something more important in life.

[Fen Canary 829]

20 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Ill let you into a secret...No one on here really disagrees with you on this.  Save your efforts or you'll miss out on something more important in life.

I’m well aware of that. I just find it interesting watching people try and defend their ideology when it’s clearly racist in nature. People like Horsefly tend to ignore the questions that pick holes in their arguments and resort to throwing out accusations of bigotry in an attempt to shut down the conversation.

I’d just like him to explain how this segregated screening he’s defending would work in practice. Would all black people be welcome, or only those who could prove their ancestors were transported on the slave ships? Would he bar mixed race people, or North Africans who were likely complicit in the slave trade? Would he allow white people whose ancestors who fought to end the practice as part of the Royal Navy?

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

26 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m well aware of that. I just find it interesting watching people try and defend their ideology when it’s clearly racist in nature. People like Horsefly tend to ignore the questions that pick holes in their arguments and resort to throwing out accusations of bigotry in an attempt to shut down the conversation.

I’d just like him to explain how this segregated screening he’s defending would work in practice. Would all black people be welcome, or only those who could prove their ancestors were transported on the slave ships? Would he bar mixed race people, or North Africans who were likely complicit in the slave trade? Would he allow white people whose ancestors who fought to end the practice as part of the Royal Navy?

It's a nonsense argument stated by the OP for 'point scoring' purposes defining anybody left of the far right as a 'lefty'. It's what they do. Few on here if any would actually promote such events (I note it is not illegal if such discrimination is done for the right reasons) and most from the sensible right, centre and left think its a poor idea in principal even if we can at least grasp where its coming from. So called 'black out' performances aren't even new' It's just a slippery slope.

Can we discuss something more sensible or pertinent than this irrelevant (and frankly nobody cares as it damages nobody - all can see the play) 'niche' interest?

[Fen Canary 829]

44 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

It's a nonsense argument stated by the OP for 'point scoring' purposes defining anybody left of the far right as a 'lefty'. It's what they do. Few on here if any would actually promote such events (I note it is not illegal if such discrimination is done for the right reasons) and most from the sensible right, centre and left think its a poor idea in principal even if we can at least grasp where its coming from. So called 'black out' performances aren't even new' It's just a slippery slope.

Can we discuss something more sensible or pertinent than this irrelevant (and frankly nobody cares as it damages nobody - all can see the play) 'niche' interest?

Why shouldn’t it be discussed? Is it because it’s politically uncomfortable that “your side” seems to be in favour of this segregation, whilst a majority of the electorate would simply say it’s racist?

Much like the trans debate, those most in favour of pushing gender self ID and the end of single sex spaces suddenly want to stop the discussion once a majority start criticising policies they’ve heavily promoted in response. Once the absurdities and contradictions are pointed out then suddenly a subject isn’t worthy of discussion, and it’s dismissed as right wingers pushing the culture war.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

Why shouldn’t it be discussed? Is it because it’s politically uncomfortable that “your side” seems to be in favour of this segregation, whilst a majority of the electorate would simply say it’s racist?

Much like the trans debate, those most in favour of pushing gender self ID and the end of single sex spaces suddenly want to stop the discussion once a majority start criticising policies they’ve heavily promoted in response. Once the absurdities and contradictions are pointed out then suddenly a subject isn’t worthy of discussion, and it’s dismissed as right wingers pushing the culture war.

Carry on with it if you wish to Fen. I've already stated I don't agree with it. 

I'm far more concerned with real racism issues that come from hate be that antisemitem or Islamophobia not fabricated umbridge on a non issue affecting almost no one or only those looking to find offence where non exists.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

22 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Ill let you into a secret...No one on here really disagrees with you on this.  Save your efforts or you'll miss out on something more important in life.

That's the problem though isn't it? Most people think it's utter rubbish but everybody just sits quietly by and let the stupidity prevail.

[Naturalcynic 631]

30 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's the problem though isn't it? Most people think it's utter rubbish but everybody just sits quietly by and let the stupidity prevail.

Whereas if the boot was on the other foot and someone invented some bizarre pseudo-justification for having whites only theatre audiences free from the “black gaze” there would be absolute outrage, grovelling apologies would be demanded, theatres would be boycotted and targeted by demonstrators, jobs would be lost, careers ruined, reputations destroyed, and criminal proceedings would likely ensue.

[Barbe bleu 827]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's the problem though isn't it? Most people think it's utter rubbish but everybody just sits quietly by and let the stupidity prevail.

It was a racist idea and it got called out, as it should have been.   Its not the calling out I was remarking upon but the fact that a lot of effort seemed to be going into arguing a point on which everyone was agreed.  If people want to put a lot of effort into labouring a point  and grabbing the last word that's their prerogative, but there are other things in life.

I'm split on whether this is a minor thing as YF suggests.  In some ways I agree that there are bigger fish than worrying about a couple of performances of a play that will not exactly be packing them in on any other day (despite the publicity it now has) but there is also the broken windows argument that unless you take care of little details bigger things grow.

Edited March 12 by Barbe bleu