Prima facia dictates that we take them at their word does it not? If they've said they've said they moved there to avoid 'white violence' then we should take them at their word unless there's contradictory evidence, that is unless you want to go and ask every person who's ever stayed there for examples of 'white violence' so you can pass judgment on whether you personally consider it to be so and if there examples don't pass muster you can label them racists for not having what in your opinion is a valid reason. And no the mixed race person, based on that same Prima facia evidence, did not experience racism because if the people there are there because of 'white violence' it's only reasonable to expect them to react in a hostile manner to anyone they perceive as white, is it not?
In general we need evidence when someone makes an accusation. I don't believe people when they make generalised claims. As we've seen in the past in America with people making up claims based on racialised views about black people led to the accused being either attacked, jailed or even killed. The case of Emmett Till comes to mind. But sadly there are many incidents like this.
A grand jury in Mississippi has declined to indict the White woman who accused 14-year-old Emmett Till of making advances toward her nearly 70 years ago, allegations that led to the Black teen's brutal death.
edition.cnn.com
I think its very important for the facts to overcome peoples perceptions of a situation. If there is no proof or any wrong doing then that point should override a false perception. Otherwise it is opening the door for prejudice opinions to become reality in some peoples minds, which can lead to hostility and violence.
Sadly these days some people will use any half reason to meat out some violence. There is a lot of objectifying of the 'other'. I find it sad in these stories that people see other people as part of a group rather than individuals.
Been working, how's the multiculturalism endgame going? Is apartheid making a comeback thanks, bizarrely, to black radical's desires to see it return? Or is it all a figment of the Daily Mail editor's imagination...? Has "racist" been defined. Or redefined? Or has the term been banned altogether due to its inability to actually BE defined?
The whirligig of weekend GD has me discombobulated.
The people behind this will look you in the eye and tell you that banning people and discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin is OK.
That's because in certain situations it is, just like in certain situations it's apparently OK to ban and discriminate against men who want to go into women's refuges.
Like i said it's not as black & white (no pun intended) as some people like to make out.
I'm just trying to understand your position as you seem to be flip flopping around, initially you said that
I'll ignore the quite frankly ridiculous comparison with women's shelters as its embarrassing. To which dis replied with his quip about private landlords and the signs of "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" from the 50's & 60's, drawing comparisons about excluding people based on their ethnicity. You decided this wasn't a fair comparison as the sign from Dis' comment was rooted in racism (I expect). The crux of the matter is that the position those of us who are arguing for this being an example of racism believe its text book example of racial discrimination.
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. ‘victims of racial discrimination’
If you think I'm flip-flopping then you've failed to understand what's been said, understandable what with the amount of times I've had to repeat the same thing simply because you failed to read something.
Trying to dismiss an argument via an appeal to ridicule is the embarrassing part, just because you believe a comparison with women's shelters is ridiculous it doesn't make it so, especially when you've made zero effort to say why.
Also are you seriously trying to hang your entire argument on a quip? One that i pointed out missed the entire point. (You're really not doing to good when it comes to following along, are you).
Also it's not "those of us who are arguing" it's you, if you need to hide behind the bandwagon then maybe your argument isn't as strong as you believe. Plus you're not arguing for this being an example of racism because you believe its text book example of racial discrimination and you're not doing that because you've literally posted the definition of "discrimination", not "racial discrimination", and not "racism". And even then the definition of "discrimination" literally starts out by saying "The unjust or prejudicial", exactly what I've been saying when I've said if there's reason to be fearful, i.e if it's preconceived opinion that is based on reason or actual experience then it's not prejudice.
In general we need evidence when someone makes an accusation. I don't believe people when they make generalised claims. As we've seen in the past in America with people making up claims based on racialised views about black people led to the accused being either attacked, jailed or even killed. The case of Emmett Till comes to mind. But sadly there are many incidents like this.
A grand jury in Mississippi has declined to indict the White woman who accused 14-year-old Emmett Till of making advances toward her nearly 70 years ago, allegations that led to the Black teen's brutal death.
edition.cnn.com
I think its very important for the facts to overcome peoples perceptions of a situation. If there is no proof or any wrong doing then that point should override a false perception. Otherwise it is opening the door for prejudice opinions to become reality in some peoples minds, which can lead to hostility and violence.
Sadly these days some people will use any half reason to meat out some violence. There is a lot of objectifying of the 'other'. I find it sad in these stories that people see other people as part of a group rather than individuals.
No, we need evidence to prove if an accusation is true or not, anyone can make an accusation and whether you, i, or anyone believe them is a personal choice, like i said prima facia dictates that we take them at their word, does it not? If you have evidence that they're not being truthful I'm all ears.
People being attacked, jailed or even killed based on what someone has claimed conflates two very different forms of justice, the legal system where evidence needs to be provided to prove or disprove a claim and mob rule where some people pay no heed to evidence and react purely on emotions. If someone chooses to break the law based on what someone else has claimed then they should be brought to justice just like anyone else, we have a legal system for a reason.
Prima facia dictates that we take them at their word does it not? If they've said they've said they moved there to avoid 'white violence' then we should take them at their word unless there's contradictory evidence, that is unless you want to go and ask every person who's ever stayed there for examples of 'white violence' so you can pass judgment on whether you personally consider it to be so and if there examples don't pass muster you can label them racists for not having what in your opinion is a valid reason.
You don't need examples if you're discriminating against people in a situation like this primarily based on some protected characteristic, that's just bigotry/unfair discrimination.
Flip it around the other way - Stacey the trad Christian girl grew up in a small rural white area, she's seen news reports of violence in black inner city areas and she's scared of black people, it would help her mental health if she could be guaranteed that black people would be segregated from her living accommodation.
Brian the incel grew up in an inner city area and was mugged twice by gangs of black kids, he's been browsing 4chan/reddit etc.. and now thinks they're sub-human, he also wants to be separate from them.
It's utterly irrelevant whether Brian has experienced some legitimate black violence or whether Stacy's fears are based in part on something that is true (inner city violence), the ideology Brian is subscribing to is wrong/flawed and the reasoning Stacy is using is flawed too - ultimately both of them are dealing with other individuals based on their group identity which as far as simply sharing accommodation is concerned is racist and wrong.
Suppose Shatoya from Detroit has seen reports of the proud boys on TV and is worried about mixing with white men when she attends university or Leroy was bullied by a group of white jocks at his suburban high school, it doesn't matter if we take them at their word that they want to avoid white violence, it's still racial discrimination and based in part on irrational fears/prejudice.
Trying to dismiss an argument via an appeal to ridicule is the embarrassing part, just because you believe a comparison with women's shelters is ridiculous it doesn't make it so, especially when you've made zero effort to say why.
Women's shelters have a no-men policy because they are safe havens for women that have been subjected to domestic and intimate partner violence, ironically ignoring same sex relationships that statistically have a higher % of abuse. The comparison to a 'no whites' policy at off campus residential building is exactly as I stated, embarrassing. Embarrassing that you thought to compare the two and embarrassing for us having to read it. Its also quite frankly embarrassing you still fail to comprehend why the comparison is ridiculous.
Also are you seriously trying to hang your entire argument on a quip? One that i pointed out missed the entire point. (You're really not doing to good when it comes to following along, are you).
Also it's not "those of us who are arguing" it's you, if you need to hide behind the bandwagon then maybe your argument isn't as strong as you believe.
Plus you're not arguing for this being an example of racism because you believe its text book example of racial discrimination and you're not doing that because you've literally posted the definition of "discrimination", not "racial discrimination", and not "racism". And even then the definition of "discrimination" literally starts out by saying "The unjust or prejudicial", exactly what I've been saying when I've said if there's reason to be fearful, i.e if it's preconceived opinion that is based on reason or actual experience then it's not prejudice.
How about the fair housing act of 1968 which extended the basic discrimination protections within the 1964 Civil Rights Act into the housing market. It explicitly prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour, national origin, religion, sex.
Race Discrimination and the Fair Housing Act
Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act (FHA) in order to promote equal access to housing opportunities. The Fair Housing Act (along with its amendments) states that property owners, financial institutions, and landlords may not discriminate on the basis of race and national origin (the Act also prohibits discrimination based on sex, religion, family status, disability, and more).
Specifically, property owners, financial institutions, and landlords may not take the following action (or inaction) based on race of the actual or potential buyer, tenant, or applicant:
Refusing to rent or sell housing;
Refusing to negotiate for housing;
Making housing unavailable;
Providing different terms to different people;
Setting different conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a property;
Denying access to or membership in a facility or service related to the sale or rental of housing;
Imposing different rates and terms on a loan;
Refusing to make a mortgage loan; and
Discriminating in appraising property.
Almost all forms of housing are covered by the Fair Housing Act. There are, however, several exceptions to these prohibitions. Generally, owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members do not have to comply with the Act.
I'll also add that the law couldn't give a rats ass about your dictionary definitions regarding prejudice, its explicitly stated that knowingly or unknowingly discriminating against someone based on the colour of their skin is illegal.
All you had to say was no you didn't think that denying white students housing based on the colour of their skin was racially motivated because you cant be racist to white people, we all know that's what you meant.
Women's shelters have a no-men policy because they are safe havens for women that have been subjected to domestic and intimate partner violence, ironically ignoring same sex relationships that statistically have a higher % of abuse. The comparison to a 'no whites' policy at off campus residential building is exactly as I stated, embarrassing. Embarrassing that you thought to compare the two and embarrassing for us having to read it. Its also quite frankly embarrassing you still fail to comprehend why the comparison is ridiculous.
What's more embarrassing is that even after the article linked to says 'white violence' you still think you know better and that the people who are choosing to live there are not being truthful. Basically your whole argument, if you can call it that, is that when a women goes into a women's shelter because they are safe havens for women you take them at their word but if it happens to be a black person saying they've been subjected to violence from white people and they want a safe haven you don't believe them, what does that say about you i wonder.
The most embarrassing thing is, like i said, that you think if it's anyone other than a women wanting a safe haven from men that it's not valid, that anyone other than women who want a safe space from the abuse they may have suffered for years shouldn't be given that.
Well you're welcome to point out what words you're finding difficult to understand or what goalpost I've moved. Because once again you saying something doesn't make it true, in fact given your history I'd say it's more likely that you've once again failed to read things properly, or at all.
Again with the failure in comprehension skills, what part of what you quoted lead you to believe i was disputing if there was an argument? Especially when i literally told you it's not "those of us who are arguing" it's you. Do i really need to explain what the difference is between "us" and "you".
How about the fair housing act of 1968 which extended the basic discrimination protections within the 1964 Civil Rights Act into the housing market. It explicitly prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, colour, national origin, religion, sex.
What is it with you and understanding words? Do you know what unjust or prejudicial even means, I've explained it enough times so i was sort of hoping it would've sunk in by now.
Race Discrimination and the Fair Housing Act
Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act (FHA) in order to promote equal access to housing opportunities. The Fair Housing Act (along with its amendments) states that property owners, financial institutions, and landlords may not discriminate on the basis of race and national origin (the Act also prohibits discrimination based on sex, religion, family status, disability, and more).
Specifically, property owners, financial institutions, and landlords may not take the following action (or inaction) based on race of the actual or potential buyer, tenant, or applicant:
Refusing to rent or sell housing;
Refusing to negotiate for housing;
Making housing unavailable;
Providing different terms to different people;
Setting different conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a property;
Denying access to or membership in a facility or service related to the sale or rental of housing;
Imposing different rates and terms on a loan;
Refusing to make a mortgage loan; and
Discriminating in appraising property.
Almost all forms of housing are covered by the Fair Housing Act. There are, however, several exceptions to these prohibitions. Generally, owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members do not have to comply with the Act.
I'll also add that the law couldn't give a rats ass about your dictionary definitions regarding prejudice, its explicitly stated that knowingly or unknowingly discriminating against someone based on the colour of their skin is illegal.
All you had to say was no you didn't think that denying white students housing based on the colour of their skin was racially motivated because you cant be racist to white people, we all know that's what you meant.
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
You managing to keep up so far? Good. Now if your preconceived opinion is based on reason or actual experience then you're not being prejudice or discriminating, get it now.
If people like you are going to scream racism at least try to understand what racism is and isn't.
e: How about i put it in even simpler terms. You're essentially saying someone who's been bitten by a half dozen dogs shouldn't be allowed to avoid dogs even though they have a reason and actual experience because that would be dogist, that someone with a fear of heights shouldn't be allow to avoid them despite having a reason for doing so because that's heightist, or any number of other fears. That everyone should forced into situations that make them fearful.
No, we need evidence to prove if an accusation is true or not, anyone can make an accusation and whether you, i, or anyone believe them is a personal choice, like i said prima facia dictates that we take them at their word, does it not? If you have evidence that they're not being truthful I'm all ears.
Prima facia is a legal term meaning based on first impressions.
If someone makes an accusation against you, that you were verbally abusive to them, should be take that as truth or investigate further?
These students have made an accusation of "white violence". That's their justification for banning white people from the common spaces.
When that accusation is impeding on other peoples ability to move around then in my opinion it needs further investigation.
I'm sure the media would cover this story differently if it was a group of white people saying, and enforcing, a white only area claiming its because of "black violence".
What's more embarrassing is that even after the article linked to says 'white violence' you still think you know better and that the people who are choosing to live there are not being truthful. Basically your whole argument, if you can call it that, is that when a women goes into a women's shelter because they are safe havens for women you take them at their word but if it happens to be a black person saying they've been subjected to violence from white people and they want a safe haven you don't believe them, what does that say about you i wonder.
The most embarrassing thing is, like i said, that you think if it's anyone other than a women wanting a safe haven from men that it's not valid, that anyone other than women who want a safe space from the abuse they may have suffered for years shouldn't be given that.
Holy ****, are you really equating actual women being beaten and abused with a bunch of self indulgent children that believe things such as 'white silence' is 'white violence'? Wow
Well done on outing yourself as an apologist for racists, glad to see you've got no issues with tarring an entire ethnicity on the actions of the few. I'm done conversing with you.
I just love the logic that if my shop is robbed by an Asian fella I can both ban Asians and men from my shop if I so choose because racism and sexism don't exist if I have a cause to dislike someone that fits in to a demographic.
You're a man aren't you dowie?
I just love the logic that if my shop is robbed by an Asian fella I can both ban Asians and men from my shop if I so choose because racism and sexism don't exist if I have a cause to dislike someone that fits in to a demographic.
You're a man aren't you dowie?
Prima facia is a legal term meaning based on first impressions.
If someone makes an accusation against you, that you were verbally abusive to them, should be take that as truth or investigate further?
These students have made an accusation of "white violence". That's their justification for banning white people from the common spaces.
When that accusation is impeding on other peoples ability to move around then in my opinion it needs further investigation.
I'm sure the media would cover this story differently if it was a group of white people saying, and enforcing, a white only area claiming its because of "black violence".
Whether a claim of verbally abusive directed at someone should be investigated further depends on who they're making the claim to. If it's to your face then you probably know if you were or not. If it's to someone you both know without any power over either of you then what they do with that information probably depends on their past history with both of you. If you work for a company and it's a customer making the claim to you boss then they'd probably believe the customer is right, deal with it, and depending on how much your boss trusts you anything from dismissing you or not mentioning it. If you're in front of a tribunal they'd probably want some sort of proof be that character references, video footage, past behaviour or whatever to either support or disprove the claim...It depends on who's making the judgment and what the possible repercussions of such a judgment would have.
These students haven't made an accusation, they've claimed they want a safe space for a reason, that reason being supposed 'white violence' whether the landlord wants to believe that is entirely up to him/her, it's a judgment for landlord to make.
Holy ****, are you really equating actual women being beaten and abused with a bunch of self indulgent children that believe things such as 'white silence' is 'white violence'? Wow
No, I'm taking someone at their word. The fact you're calling them "a bunch of self indulgent children that believe things such as 'white silence' is 'white violence'" pretty much demonstrates that you're not being objective, far from it in fact as you've clearly shown how you're being prejudice, or to use your preferred vernacular discriminating, against a group of people base on no reasons whatsoever.
Nice to see how you've kick yourself in the ass though.
Well done on outing yourself as an apologist for racists, glad to see you've got no issues with tarring an entire ethnicity on the actions of the few. I'm done conversing with you.
Well of course you're done, all you've got left as an argument is personal insults and weak attempts to mischaracterise what i said, as BowdonUK's sig puts it "weak minds discuss people".
These students haven't made an accusation, they've claimed they want a safe space for a reason, that reason being supposed 'white violence' whether the landlord wants to believe that is entirely up to him/her, it's a judgment for landlord to make.
Another element of this story is that it seems to be in a private landlord building not under the control of the University.
I dare say under a private roof there is more leeway in the law than if it happened in a genuinely public space. I'm also not sure of the laws in the US, and the State, involving things like this. Whether any laws were even broken.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
edition.cnn.com
Has "racist" been defined. Or redefined? Or has the term been banned altogether due to its inability to actually BE defined? 
