Black Lives Matter Group Told Meeting Must Include Anyone

[Deathbydefault]

To exclude like minded people solely because of race sure looks racist to me.

They couldn't possibly be doing it because it is a race based issue that they believe is their responsibility?
They can't be exclusionary on the grounds that they may think it is an issue that only involves them and their history?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that I wont be jumping to any conclusions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did we just witness the arrival of the "No True BLM Activist Fallacy"?

No, because BLM stated they weren't acting on behalf of BLM, and BLM demanded an apology.
Not really the same, but, in a way, kinda like when a bunch of hooligans around here went on using the GD (Gangter Disciples) name, and were paid a visit from the real GD for using the name without their blessing.

 

[columbus]

Just because other people tell me they are racist doesn't mean they are racist.

If a group of Trump supporters excluded LGBT people, would I still need to spell it out?
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To exclude like minded people solely because of race sure looks racist to me.

Transgender groups very often exclude non-transgenders from attending. Not always, but cisgender people should not expect to be allowed, because cisgender people are often excluded to keep away "chasers," those who are looking for nothing more than a date to fulfill their fetishes. It has nothing to do with being bigoted towards cisgender people, but rather is about providing safety for transgender people.

 

[Revoltingest]

They couldn't possibly be doing it because it is a race based issue that they believe is their responsibility?

This issue is solely the responsibility of people they say are the same race as they?
They why do they even bother to annoy us with their problems?
Oh, yes....that's because they think it's someone else's responsibility....someone they won't associate with.

They can't be exclusionary on the grounds that they may think it is an issue that only involves them and their history?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that I wont be jumping to any conclusions.

They could.....and they're racists.
They're also sexist for refusing to recognize the greater police bias against males.

Edit:
I don't intend this to be severe criticism.
In & of itself, it harms no one.
But when they abridge the right of others to speak, & seek to violate
the law or discriminate against others, these actions are very wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Transgender groups very often exclude non-transgenders from attending. Not always, but cisgender people should not expect to be allowed, because cisgender people are often excluded to keep away "chasers," those who are looking for nothing more than a date to fulfill their fetishes. It has nothing to do with being bigoted towards cisgender people, but rather is about providing safety for transgender people.

I say it's wrong to exclude any because of some unrelated trait.
Exclude the "chasers" for doing what they do, not for other traits.

It reminds me of back in high school....
I went to some peace activism meeting.
Someone objected because I was on the rifle team.
I had to broaden some minds about things.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Geez, you guys make it difficult to play devils advocate

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I say it's wrong to exclude any because of some unrelated trait.
Exclude the "chasers" for doing what they do, not for other traits.

And then instead of doing meeting stuff, they can take time out to question and kick people out. Or, instead of looking for dates, they want to preach damnation and wrongness, which is something those of the GLBT community, as a whole, have suffered with at some point in time in their lives, and hearing it again may not be good for them, especially when the meeting is supposed to be friendly, safe, and supportive.

 

[Revoltingest]

And then instead of doing meeting stuff, they can take time out to question and kick people out. Or, instead of looking for dates, they want to preach damnation and wrongness, which is something those of the GLBT community, as a whole, have suffered with at some point in time in their lives, and hearing it again may not be good for them, especially when the meeting is supposed to be friendly, safe, and supportive.

If someone is misbehaving, then that should be the criterion for exclusion.....not appearance.

 

[columbus]

especially when the meeting is supposed to be friendly, safe, and supportive.

Here's what I think is going on.
You are confusing support groups and political action groups. By doing so you are plastering over the unambiguous racism of some black activists.

I see a lot of SJWs explaining away bigotry from various groups who are on the "PC protected people" list.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

These kids have more choice these days, now that the draft is over.
They don't face the decisions of fleeing the country, going to prison, or being sent off to a war.
Many draftees died in service....far far more than died at the hands of errant cops.
(Moreover, women & trans folk don't even have to register for the draft.)
They utterly fail to understand the great privilege they have relative to others.

I am saying the "degree of choice" one has or may have had with participation in war does not compare to the "degree of choice" one has regarding race or gender.

 

[Curious George]

Here's what I think is going on.
You are confusing support groups and political action groups. By doing so you are plastering over the unambiguous racism of some black activists.

I see a lot of SJWs explaining away bigotry from various groups who are on the "PC protected people" list.
Tom

Sjw...Lol....smh

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are confusing support groups and political action groups. By doing so you are plastering over the unambiguous racism of some black activists.

I am not (my earlier posts in this thread even indicated the poor choice in cutting off potential supporters). I am, however, pointing out that we do not know why they have such a policy. I'm not going to pretend to know if they did have problems with white people who attended in the past, but it is a possibility. I'm not going to pretend they just want to keep the honkeys out, but it is a possibility. Until we know their reason(s), we don't know if it is a racist policy, or serving some other purpose. For all we know, they may have had white people in attendance before, but they started to try to take over, speak over people, and try to guide the conversation away from a black perspective, which is vital for a black issue, and towards a typical white perspective, which just does not have to deal with a lot of the bull**** that black people experience just for being black.
I am also pointing out that a ton of different groups exclude certain people on various different grounds. The hypocrisy isn't a "no whites" policy, it's that few people complain about the other groups doing it, but everyone makes it a point when it's a black-movement. Even in some of our more basic forms of socializing we have "guys night out" and the "girls night out."

If someone is misbehaving, then that should be the criterion for exclusion.....not appearance.

There is an old saying, something about a few people ruining for everybody. If you have a problem with certain people, why not take care of the problem before it starts? It's more about problems in past experiences and preventing those problems in the future.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Because they're racist. How hard is that to see?

Black people can't be racist. Only racists don't know that. Unless they're black, then they're not racist because they can't be.

 

[Curious George]

I am not (my earlier posts in this thread even indicated the poor choice in cutting off potential supporters). I am, however, pointing out that we do not know why they have such a policy. I'm not going to pretend to know if they did have problems with white people who attended in the past, but it is a possibility. I'm not going to pretend they just want to keep the honkeys out, but it is a possibility. Until we know their reason(s), we don't know if it is a racist policy, or serving some other purpose. For all we know, they may have had white people in attendance before, but they started to try to take over, speak over people, and try to guide the conversation away from a black perspective, which is vital for a black issue, and towards a typical white perspective, which just does not have to deal with a lot of the bull**** that black people experience just for being black.
I am also pointing out that a ton of different groups exclude certain people on various different grounds. The hypocrisy isn't a "no whites" policy, it's that few people complain about the other groups doing it, but everyone makes it a point when it's a black-movement. Even in some of our more basic forms of socializing we have "guys night out" and the "girls night out."

There is an old saying, something about a few people ruining for everybody. If you have a problem with certain people, why not take care of the problem before it starts? It's more about problems in past experiences and preventing those problems in the future.

While I understand that you are asking for a show of discriminatory intent, you are forgetting that the policy is facially discriminatory. A show of intent needn't be given. An explanation of the discrimination need be.

You are trying to fall back on something that is not racial. We treat these as different. Nothing prevents your argument from being used to rationalize segregation of schools for instance. It is not a argument. It is an attempt at apologetics. If you are going to employ facially discriminatory racial policies....do not use public institutions to do so.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am saying the "degree of choice" one has or may have had with participation in war does not compare to the "degree of choice" one has regarding race or gender.

In some cases, the ability to pass gives more choice.
But choice is also tricky for other reasons.
And ithe significance of immutability is often over-stated.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is an old saying, something about a few people ruining for everybody. If you have a problem with certain people, why not take care of the problem before it starts? It's more about problems in past experiences and preventing those problems in the future.

The problem is with people who act a certain way, not with people who look a certain way.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nothing prevents your argument from being used to rationalize segregation of schools for instance.

The segregation of schools cannot be rationalized. They are public (the same reason BLM was told they can't host their meetings at the public library), and they do not serve any special interests, political groups, support groups, or the variety of other groups that typically are known for excluding some people based on whatever. Even the Boy Scouts are known for being limited in their functions in public schools.
And, I am not trying to apologize for anyone. I know, factually, that plenty of groups exclude different people.Because of this, I am asking for what reason the Nashville BLM made this policy before judging them.

 

[Curious George]

The segregation of schools cannot be rationalized. They are public (the same reason BLM was told they can't host their meetings at the public library),

And there is the apt comparison. Because, the only reason anyone cares is because it was utilizing publicly funded space.

If this was hosted at a bar, no one would care. What groups gather only becomes a public concern when publicly funded space is concerned. Now, that said, if they were paying for the space and the library offered such space to like-groups (political groups with racially discriminatory policies) then I suppose I still wouldn't care. I wouldn't support such a group because I think a group that chooses to exclude should exist only in private space. But if the other people want to use the government to extend these groups benefit in such a way as to not discriminate between them, well I can only voice my opposition to that choice. But that is not what we have here. We have a library who implemented a policy favoring groups that did not discriminate, and then we have a group who had a facially discriminatory policy trying to derive benefit in clear contravention of that policy.

 

[Curious George]

In some cases, the ability to pass gives more choice.
But choice is also tricky for other reasons.
And ithe significance of immutability is often over-stated.

A jump to philosophy? My point still stands. You had more of a "degree of choice" regarding your participation in the Vietnam war than you did your race-for what the concept is worth.