University creates "no whites" zones

[Murphy]

Why do you feel the need to add the caveat of "typically one that is a minority or marginalized"?
What about say a 20 year old white South African that's been a victim of 'constant abuse", moves to a country with a majority white population, would he be racist if he held prejudiced views against black people?

I don't, it's literally the OED definition.

But that doesn't fit the definition you posted...

What doesn't? Would it help if i gave you the definition of "reason"?

Because unless, like you're doing, you're being incredibly obtuse it fits the definition exactly, in fact i wouldn't even say it 'fits' because it's literally what the definition is. Maybe you should ask someone to buy you a dictionary this Christmas.

 

[Dis86]

I don't, it's literally the OED definition.

What doesn't? Would it help if i gave you the definition of "reason"?

Because unless, like you're doing, you're being incredibly obtuse it fits the definition exactly, in fact i wouldn't even say it 'fits' because it's literally what the definition is. Maybe you should ask someone to buy you a dictionary this Christmas.

Reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.

One would have to be bereft of logic to fit your definitions.

 

[Murphy]

Confirmed troll of just to dumb to be allowed on the internet....Internet what is the definition of the word "reason"....

1 A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
‘she asked him to return, but didn't give a reason’

1.1 [mass noun] Good or obvious cause to do something.
‘we have reason to celebrate’

1.2 Logic A premise of an argument in support of a belief, especially a minor premise when given after the conclusion.
‘The premise clearly gives a good reason for the conclusion, but it is not completely conclusive.’

2 [mass noun] The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.
‘there is a close connection between reason and emotion’

2.1 What is right, practical, or possible; common sense.
‘people are willing, within reason, to pay for schooling’

2.2 one's reasonOne's sanity.
‘she is in danger of losing her reason’

English, do you speak it?

 

[Dis86]

Confirmed troll of just to dumb to be allowed on the internet....Internet what is the definition of the word "reason"....

English, do you speak it?

And I which context did you originally state it...ah wait, you changed the definition mid-post to try and fit your agenda.
You changed from a reason, definition 1 above, to reason, definition 2.

Suggest you re-read your own posts.

 

[Murphy]

What are you talking about? It's blooming obvious what the context was, it's obvious because saying...

Characterized by or showing prejudice (definition of prejudice)

Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason (definition of reason)

A premise of an argument in support of a belief, especially a minor premise when given after the conclusion.

or actual experience.

, discrimination, or antagonism 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.

Simply doesn't make grammatical sense whereas saying...

Characterized by or showing prejudice(definition of prejudice)

Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason (definition of reason)

A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

or actual experience.

, discrimination, or antagonism 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.

Does.

What do you mean i changed the definition mid-post to try and fit my agenda, what post? If you're talking about the one you quoted then you've seriously lost the plot because there's literally a link to the definition so you can see what if anything (hint there's nothing) i changed. Do you even understand how a dictionary works?

 

[C Kent]

I don't, it's literally the OED definition.

So if you say have negative experiences with one person of a particular ethnicity in your mind its ok to apply that logic to the entirety of that ethnicity? Or if you live in a city where the majority of crime is committed by one ethnicity your perfectly fine to apply that logic to all and you aren't a racist?
Interesting

 

[NVP]

to dumb

Tee hee hee

 

[bigmike20vt]

Who a woman's shelter chooses to let in is entirely up to them IMO, i personally don't care either way as it's not something that effects me. But either way i wouldn't be trying to cancel them simply for making that choice like some people seemingly want to do with the decision of this private landlord.

No, although it's impressive how much you missed the point.

If you've been a victim of constant abuse, physical or mental, from a black person then sure it's your right to say you don't want to be around black people, if you've been attacked by dogs then you should be allowed to say you don't want to be around dogs, etc, etc. (Does that clear things up for you?)

I think it is really difficult because it is easy imo to see it from both sides.

I think not allowing white people into a communal area is disgraceful and just as bad as not allowing black people into other places.
I have sympathy that black people may feel they have been treated badly by white folk and distrusts them but this isn't the answer any more than it is to blame ALL muslims for terrorism etc.

BUT OTOH and this is why it is imo difficult is I DO think it is ok for a women's shelter to not allow men in.... but at the same time you could use the exact same argument as to why you should allow a man into a woman's shelter to visit and whilst I would disagree with you I couldn't really argue it any differently than those who would segregate blacks and whites in a communal area.

I guess I am a hypocrite.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I don't think they have, not at all, the issue is born to the few who have no exposure of others daily lives. In a town or city generally integration has occurred and it is the older generations with larger mixed circles than the middle aged, and the youth today have followed suit nicely.

From my perspective it appears it is those who do not get this type of daily integration of lives (whether older or not) that remain in fear and require separation for their own mental wellbeing.

Or in the case of the very old gentleman stabbed to death in his mobility scooter, for their own PHYSICAL well being too, perhaps?

 

[Murphy]

So if you say have negative experiences with one person of a particular ethnicity in your mind its ok to apply that logic to the entirety of that ethnicity? Or if you live in a city where the majority of crime is committed by one ethnicity your perfectly fine to apply that logic to all and you aren't a racist?
Interesting

It sure would be helpful if you read some of the previous posts before replying as this has already been covered...

If you've been a victim of constant abuse, physical or mental, from a black person then sure it's your right to say you don't want to be around black people, if you've been attacked by dogs then you should be allowed to say you don't want to be around dogs, etc, etc. (Does that clear things up for you?)

Yes and again, because I was robbed by one black person does not mean all black people will rob me...it is not based on reason. You said it yourself.
One does not represent the whole.

A single instance of being robbed by a black person should not lead a reasonable person to believe that all black people are the same, if on the other hand you've been robbed by a black person 10 times in the last year then you'd perhaps start to believe all black people are robbers.

Tee hee hee

Indeed, your post is laughable.

I think it is really difficult because it is easy imo to see it from both sides.

I think not allowing white people into a communal area is disgraceful and just as bad as not allowing black people into other places.
I have sympathy that black people may feel they have been treated badly by white folk and distrusts them but this isn't the answer any more than it is to blame ALL muslims for terrorism etc.

BUT OTOH and this is why it is imo difficult is I DO think it is ok for a women's shelter to not allow men in.... but at the same time you could use the exact same argument as to why you should allow a man into a woman's shelter to visit and whilst I would disagree with you I couldn't really argue it any differently than those who would segregate blacks and whites in a communal area.

I guess I am a hypocrite.

Not a hypocrite, it's not as black & white (no pun intended) as some people like to think it is. I agree that separating victims of abuse from the world (by that races, sexes, or any other victim) is not the answer. However sometimes it's a necessity because you need to create an environment where the person feels safe so they can start to concentrate on something other than the fear they're probably so used feeling. Ideally you'd remove the person from whatever their perceived threat is and start working with them to undo what's essentially an *irrational fear.

*Like others have said just because you been a victim of abuse, no matter how many times from whatever demographic, it's not rational to think everyone from that demographic is going to abuse you. However that's not how our monkey brain works, our initial reaction to situations is often emotional however when that emotional reaction, like fear, causes problems in our everyday life like it does for women in refuges and i assume these people that want to avoid white, or even black, people then they need to learn how to recognise those emotions and 'overrule' them with the logical part of their brain.

 

[GGizmo]

Depends on the reason they don't want to associate with black people. The definition of racism is "A person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." My emphasis because prejudice is defined as a "Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." so if someone had a valid reason or experience for being antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group then it wouldn't be racist.

Just like a woman who has been the victim of abuse from males wouldn't be a misandrist because they have a valid reason and/or lived experience.

See above and learn what racism is.

There used to be official local government council documentation from 20 years ago of the difference between prejudice and racism.

Prejudice is from an ethnic minority group that doesn't have the power to enact their views. While racism is the enactment of prejudice by the ethnic majority. Therefore under that definition an ethnic minority person can never be called racist, unless they become the majority.

But in your example the definition of prejudiced isn't based on the size of the ethnic grouping, only on "preconceived opinion and not based on a reason or actual experience". From reading the article it seems that the black students are prejudiced as they are saying they moved there to avoid 'white violence', yet no example is given. A mixed race person wasn't allowed in the area and had racial slurs made against them. So under your definition that person experienced racism?

I understand what you're saying about the definition of racism. Isn't allowing a situation of prejudice going to produce racism, as it did for that mixed race person?

In your example of the woman and female spaces. In that case you say she did experience anti-female abuse. So wouldn't that be the equal to someone experiencing full on racism, rather than your definition of prejudice?

 

[fez]

Amazing just how many posts in here were discussing the merits of the DM instead of the actual topic.

This is quite the perfect example of how nuts the world has gone. 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. They will then lecture you on the racism and discrimination they face. You wouldn't think you could write this but its become that insane.

I just watched an advert railing against a industry that was dominated by men. And they combat this by...making an all women group to do the job. The NHS is putting out adverts looking for people identifying as women. Its genuinely mind boggling. All the accepted wisdoms on equality and how we treat people seems to be going out of the window as long as you are discriminating against the right people.

 

[C Kent]

It sure would be helpful if you read some of the previous posts before replying as this has already been covered...

I'm just trying to understand your position as you seem to be flip flopping around, initially you said that

If a private landlord doesn't think his tenants have the mental fortitude to cope with certain people being in a common area then that's the landlords choice

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.

Discrimination as per the OED

NOUN​

• The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
  ‘victims of racial discrimination’

Whereas you don't see this as fitting the above?

 

[NVP]

Indeed, your post is laughable.

Honestly, that's your retort? Tut tut tut

 

[bigmike20vt]

There used to be official local government council documentation from 20 years ago of the difference between prejudice and racism.

Prejudice is from an ethnic minority group that doesn't have the power to enact their views. While racism is the enactment of prejudice by the ethnic majority. Therefore under that definition an ethnic minority person can never be called racist, unless they become the majority.

But in your example the definition of prejudiced isn't based on the size of the ethnic grouping, only on "preconceived opinion and not based on a reason or actual experience". From reading the article it seems that the black students are prejudiced as they are saying they moved there to avoid 'white violence', yet no example is given. A mixed race person wasn't allowed in the area and had racial slurs made against them. So under your definition that person experienced racism?

I understand what you're saying about the definition of racism. Isn't allowing a situation of prejudice going to produce racism, as it did for that mixed race person?

In your example of the woman and female spaces. In that case you say she did experience anti-female abuse. So wouldn't that be the equal to someone experiencing full on racism, rather than your definition of prejudice?

I am not doubting the existence of such a government document but I would say it is horse ****
where do you (not the literal you, I am not attacking you here just the definition you posted) take your figures from to decide who has the bigger population?

global? in which case I can never be racist towards a Chinese person..... would it be in the country? in which case as it stands black, Asian people can do what they want agains t white people in England and it not be racist.

maybe it's in a street or area of a city in which case Alf garnet would be a racist if he lived in a small village but if he up sticks and moved to rusholme in Manchester suddenly he wouldn't be?

it's a nonsense definition imo esp when crimes considered racial often have harsher punishments, than those which are not .

I can't say I have spent ages coming up with definitions of racism or prejudism and the ,2 are obviously close siblings, but that government definition is actually quite offensive imo as it means that no one can be racist against a white person assuming it is meaning UK population. I am sure the BLM lot would love it however.

(and yes I support the basic premise that black lives matter every bit as much as any other life but no one can surely tell me that it doesn't have a strong contingent of white hating racists** among them as well.)

** apparently not using the government definition

 

[V F]

Amazing just how many posts in here were discussing the merits of the DM instead of the actual topic.

This is quite the perfect example of how nuts the world has gone. 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. They will then lecture you on the racism and discrimination they face. You wouldn't think you could write this but its become that insane.

I just watched an advert railing against a industry that was dominated by men. And they combat this by...making an all women group to do the job. The NHS is putting out adverts looking for people identifying as women. Its genuinely mind boggling. All the accepted wisdoms on equality and how we treat people seems to be going out of the window as long as you are discriminating against the right people.

You mean the same people that are so busy fighting each other over racism rather than tackling the Government over the killing of a pensioner on an electric wheelchair while trying to keep the streets safe? The media know how to play the masses. Get them fighting each other ripping each others throats out verbally they wont have time to make the Government sweat in fear of actually doing what they're employed/voted for.

 

[Murphy]

There used to be official local government council documentation from 20 years ago of the difference between prejudice and racism.

Prejudice is from an ethnic minority group that doesn't have the power to enact their views. While racism is the enactment of prejudice by the ethnic majority. Therefore under that definition an ethnic minority person can never be called racist, unless they become the majority.

But in your example the definition of prejudiced isn't based on the size of the ethnic grouping, only on "preconceived opinion and not based on a reason or actual experience". From reading the article it seems that the black students are prejudiced as they are saying they moved there to avoid 'white violence', yet no example is given. A mixed race person wasn't allowed in the area and had racial slurs made against them. So under your definition that person experienced racism?

I understand what you're saying about the definition of racism. Isn't allowing a situation of prejudice going to produce racism, as it did for that mixed race person?

In your example of the woman and female spaces. In that case you say she did experience anti-female abuse. So wouldn't that be the equal to someone experiencing full on racism, rather than your definition of prejudice?

I've already said it but it's not my definition, it's the OED's definition and it includes the words "typically one that is a minority or marginalized." That doesn't mean it's exclusively directed at minority or marginalized groups it just means most of the time it is.

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 my example of a woman who has been the victim of abuse from males i didn't actually mention female spaces or anti-female abuse (misogyny), I'm also not entirely sure i understand your question.

Honestly, that's your retort? Tut tut tut

Says the poster who's only responses so far have been those of a prepubescent teen.

 

[NVP]

Says the poster who's only responses so far have been those of a prepubescent teen.

I'm feeling attacked. I need my own space. Where did my thread go??

 

[GGizmo]

I am not doubting the existence of such a government document but I would say it is horse ****
where do you (not the literal you, I am not attacking you here just the definition you posted) take your figures from to decide who has the bigger population?

global? in which case I can never be racist towards a Chinese person..... would it be in the country? in which case as it stands black, Asian people can do what they want agains t white people in England and it not be racist.

maybe it's in a street or area of a city in which case Alf garnet would be a racist if he lived in a small village but if he up sticks and moved to rusholme in Manchester suddenly he wouldn't be?

it's a nonsense definition imo esp when crimes considered racial often have harsher punishments, than those which are not .

I can't say I have spent ages coming up with definitions of racism or prejudism and the ,2 are obviously close siblings, but that government definition is actually quite offensive imo as it means that no one can be racist against a white person assuming it is meaning UK population. I am sure the BLM lot would love it however.

(and yes I support the basic premise that black lives matter every bit as much as any other life but no one can surely tell me that it doesn't have a strong contingent of white hating racists among them as well.)

I used to have a copy of the document when I was politically active. I don't agree with the definition either. But I was posting the definition of how those words used to be defined, at least at that council level.

I can only guess how they are detemining an ethnic minority vs majority. I'm thinking they mean on a national basis.

 

[Dis86]

I'm feeling attacked. I need my own space. Where did my thread go??

Careful. He'll redefine space in a second. Oh christ, second?! He'll redefine time too. Time and space. Then where will we be? Or when will we be?