Black Lives Matter Group Told Meeting Must Include Anyone

[Revoltingest]

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.

I also know many people who could pass for white or black.
I say that's less restrictive than the draft.
But still....race is too often an excuse for unsuccess, & the advantages conferred by it go under-utilitzed.

 

[RRex]

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

All I've seen on the issue is their exclusionary attitude, nothing that has really earned them being called racist.
If you want to provide that nugget of info that would show they are undoubtedly racist, I'd happily look at it.

I have more of a problem with the pussyfooting around so-called offensive semantics than I do with the BS BLM movement.

 

[Curious George]

I also know many people who could pass for white or black.
I say that's less restrictive than the draft.
But still....race is too often an excuse for unsuccess, & the advantages conferred by it go under-utilitzed.

Is this a manifestation of the complaint that people blame race when it is not a factor, or are you acknowledging that race is a factor but implying that it just isn't decisive?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is this a manifestation of the complaint that people blame race when it is not a factor, or are you acknowledging that race is a factor but implying that it just isn't decisive?

This isn't clear.

 

[Curious George]

This isn't clear.

I guess I was trying to clarify what you said....perhaps I should have asked "what do you really mean?"

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess I was trying to clarify what you said....perhaps I should have asked "what do you really mean?"

Uh oh.....I'm not sure I could do a better job.
And me brain is starting to shut down after all the snow removal today.
Let me just say that racism is bad.
Sexism too.
I advocate being nice to people.
And puppies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

They may have just chose the library because it is convenient. Myself, I wasn't aware of all the restrictions until I started working at a university library. Then, when all of it became relevant, I knew about the laws regarding such things. If your complaint is that they met at a public library, then it must be asked were they aware of such restrictions? Libraries are very convenient, for everyone, and it may be that they didn't realize the "for everyone" part means they can't meet if they won't allow everyone (they may not even be allowed if they did allow everyone given the political nature of BLM. At IU, there is simply no "one side" and everyone, even creationists and those who believe god is the ultimate source of morality, are given time to make their case). But, to give equal time to a counter of BLM, it's to expect too much of a library, to distract people from the primary reason of a library, and is, ultimately, probably far too many headaches than it's worth because if you allow "no whites allowed" then you have to allow "no non-whites allowed."
Prove to me it is a racist policy, and that this "no whites allowed" exists for racist reasons, and I will curse them as any racist group should be. But, until then, I want the actual reason for their policy to know why it is, rather than just assume why it is, because assumptions in this case can lean towards believing they have racist motives or believing they have other motives. Before I am making this judgement, all I am asking for is a simple "why?"

 

[Curious George]

They may have just chose the library because it is convenient. Myself, I wasn't aware of all the restrictions until I started working at a university library. Then, when all of it became relevant, I knew about the laws regarding such things. If your complaint is that they met at a public library, then it must be asked were they aware of such restrictions? Libraries are very convenient, for everyone, and it may be that they didn't realize the "for everyone" part means they can't meet if they won't allow everyone (they may not even be allowed if they did allow everyone given the political nature of BLM. At IU, there is simply no "one side" and everyone, even creationists and those who believe god is the ultimate source of morality, are given time to make their case). But, to give equal time to a counter of BLM, it's to expect too much of a library, to distract people from the primary reason of a library, and is, ultimately, probably far too many headaches than it's worth because if you allow "no whites allowed" then you have to allow "no non-whites allowed."
Prove to me it is a racist policy, and that this "no whites allowed" exists for racist reasons, and I will curse them as any racist group should be. But, until then, I want the actual reason for their policy to know why it is, rather than just assume why it is, because assumptions in this case can lean towards believing they have racist motives or believing they have other motives. Before I am making this judgement, all I am asking for is a simple "why?"

Well I am simply saying that it is racially discriminatory. If they didn't know...hmmm. Well, perhaps they should have imagined a situation whereby they came to a public library, saw a group, tried to go in and were told "no, sorry no blacks allowed." Lol. Even if the group had a non-racist intent for saying such a thing. I imagine it they would think that something was off.

I would imagine that anyone would reasonably imagine they cannot do this at a public facility. Race discrimination, and that is what this is-regardless of whether one classifies it as racist or not-- is pretty frowned upon in society today. Yet somehow something is going to preserve this? Such as fear of 'uppity' whites?

Where have I heard things like that. Come on. Bottom line is that the policy, that we are taking as true, was racially discriminatory--on its face.

While I have trouble thinking of even a rational intent behind such a policy, I am not even assuming it is racist. Just that it is not reasonable to use public facilities with such a policy in place, nor is it reasonable to assume one could use public facilities with such a purpose. If they were having a march or some sort of demonstration that would be different. But they were not.

 

[Curious George]

Uh oh.....I'm not sure I could do a better job.
And me brain is starting to shut down after all the snow removal today.
Let me just say that racism is bad.
Sexism too.
I advocate being nice to people.
And puppies.

Well perhaps try again later.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well I am simply saying that it is racially discriminatory. If they didn't know...hmmm. Well, perhaps they should have imagined a situation whereby they came to a public library, saw a group, tried to go in and were told "no, sorry no blacks allowed." Lol. Even if the group had a non-racist intent for saying such a thing. I imagine it they would think that something was off.

I recall many Boy Scouts who were unaware of their own restrictions when in a public school until it became an issue. Of course the Scout leaders knew this, but they did not tell the kids until after the fact.

While I have trouble thinking of even a rational intent behind such a policy

Perhaps, maybe, it is because you haven't been a member of group that would benefit from being exclusive. It's why I do not want to jump the gun and label them racist. The public place is understandable, but at the same time it's not like those laws are well known or widely published and made readily available (at least here they aren't). Public places typically serve specific functions and purposes, and a library just is not the place for a political group. I will label them as rude and disruptive (don't even expect to have game night during finals week in front of the library when I'm on duty), because a library just is not the place for such a thing, not where people go to study, research, and expect the quiet, silent, and peaceful place their tax dollars are paying for. But I need evidence of racist motivations to label them racist.

 

[columbus]

Race discrimination, and that is what this is-regardless of whether one classifies it as racist or not-- is pretty frowned upon in society today.

No it isn't.
Reread this thread.
Racism is alive and well in the USA. But it has become more diverse.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

I recall many Boy Scouts who were unaware of their own restrictions when in a public school until it became an issue. Of course the Scout leaders knew this, but they did not tell the kids until after the fact.

Perhaps, maybe, it is because you haven't been a member of group that would benefit from being exclusive. It's why I do not want to jump the gun and label them racist. The public place is understandable, but at the same time it's not like those laws are well known or widely published and made readily available (at least here they aren't). Public places typically serve specific functions and purposes, and a library just is not the place for a political group. I will label them as rude and disruptive (don't even expect to have game night during finals week in front of the library when I'm on duty), because a library just is not the place for such a thing, not where people go to study, research, and expect the quiet, silent, and peaceful place their tax dollars are paying for. But I need evidence of racist motivations to label them racist.

Yet I am not saying racist...you are. I am saying racially discriminatory policies.

Just like I am sure the bakers that refused the wedding cake didn't hate "gays." It isn't the intent we need to address. Simply the policy given the public that the policy affects.

 

[Curious George]

No it isn't.
Reread this thread.
Racism is alive and well in the USA. But it has become more diverse.
Tom

Well, hmmm. Race discrimination not frowned upon? I suppose it is a possibility. I frown upon it. I see others frown upon it. Perhaps I have wishful thinking. But were we to take a poll and ask if you "frown on racial discrimination, approve of it, or don't care" I would think frowns would take the day.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just like I am sure the bakers that refused the wedding cake didn't hate "gays." It isn't the intent we need to address. Simply the policy given the public that the policy affects.

Except we know, for a fact, that these bakers were basing their views on the Bible. There is no wondering about if homosexuals were causing a ruckus. We know these bakers simply did not want to serve a homosexual clientele because they believe homosexuals are sinners that the bakers feel they should not have to serve. We have a why. With this BLM chapter, we, so far, do not have this why.

 

[columbus]

But were we to take a poll and ask if you "frown on racial discrimination, approve of it, or don't care" I would think frowns would take the day.

You'd have gotten the same response in 1965.
Nearly everyone agrees that racism is bad. They just don't agree on what it means. Lots of people think that racial discrimination is OK.
It is not racism if you approve of it. #BLM is serious evidence of that.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

Except we know, for a fact, that these bakers were basing their views on the Bible. There is no wondering about if homosexuals were causing a ruckus. We know these bakers simply did not want to serve a homosexual clientele because they believe homosexuals are sinners that the bakers feel they should not have to serve. We have a why. With this BLM chapter, we, so far, do not have this why.

and we know this specific group didn't want whites at their meeting and didn't feel they had to include whites at their meeting in a publicly owned space.

 

[Revoltingest]

You'd have gotten the same response in 1965.
Nearly everyone agrees that racism is bad. They just don't agree on what it means. Lots of people think that racial discrimination is OK.
It is not racism if you approve of it. #BLM is serious evidence of that.
Tom

But......
"Black people can't be racist." - Spike Lee (1991 Playboy interview)

This seems a pervasive view among both black & white ("liberal") folk.
Black history inoculates them against such charges, so when separatism
became recognized as racism by whites, the same attitudes by blacks is
something else, ie, reasonable.

 

[Maponos]

Black Lives Matter racist? How surprising.

 

[metis]

Black Lives Matter racist? How surprising.

Why is that supposedly "racist"? Yes, blacks can be racist because us whites don't have a monopoly on it, but I don't see the general movement of BLM as being "racist". Quite the reverse since the movement started up to fight racism.

 

[Curious George]

But......
"Black people can't be racist." - Spike Lee (1991 Playboy interview)

This seems a pervasive view among both black & white ("liberal") folk.
Black history inoculates them against such charges, so when separatism
became recognized as racism by whites, the same attitudes by blacks is
something else, ie, reasonable.

I think your view of the pervasive view is mistaken. Perhaps you should start a poll to see which of us is out of touch with reality.