University creates "no whites" zones

Thread: 'University bans...'
Article: 'An off-campus co-op for students'
Keyword: 'reportedly'
Source: 'Daily Mail'
Citing: 'Reddit'
Problem: 'I don't think I like my housemates'

Bottom of the barrel journalism for a selective reader. Typical Mail.

Labrat leaps. GD draws handbags. The nature of human rights is once again at stake! And yet... the University didn't ban anything.
 
BowdonUK said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thing is it's not (afaik) been tested under the law, there's nothing under the law (again afaik) that say you can't restrict who's allowed to enter a private residency due to the people living there having a genuine fear of whatever group said person belongs to. Despite these silly strawmen arguments the people who seem to struggle so much when it comes to comprehending the English language keep putting forward.

It reminds me of that baker in (was it Ireland?) who refused to bake a cake celebrating gay pride. They were perfectly within their rights to refuse to do that just like some places reserve the right to refuse entry because it hadn't been tested in law up to that point, it's not prejudice or discriminatory because there's a reason for refusing to bake the cake or refuse entry, it may not be a rational reason, it may not even be a reason based on reason but it is a reason. If the judicial system gets involved then they can make a judgment on whether those reasons are valid or not and only they can compel someone to do something they may not want to do.

Much like people were perfectly within their rights to put up signs saying no blacks, no Irish, no dogs back in the day until the courts ruled that their reasons for doing so were not valid and created precedence that said that wasn't OK.

e: I imagine if the property was under the control of the University that there's probably an existing law that would prevent them from banning certain demographics from entering their property, however like you say this is a private property so any law forcing them to allow anyone entry would be infringing on not only their personal rights but all private property owners.
 
The OP once got the huff and posted a I AM LEAVING thread (which got locked for bonus LOLs) and sometimes, like right now, I wonder what our lives would have been like if he'd lived up to his promise. A bit like Sliding Doors but less Paltrow and more contentment.
 
It's interesting that American black youth are effectively touting apartheid as an answer to inter racial violence, and somewhat remarkable given the strength of feeling claimed by black movements against it in South Africa, in not that long ago times.

Have we come full circle and some radical rethinking on the previous condemnation of it is gaining traction with American black youth?

There is some very tangible lack of condemnation for their actions in this thread, can one assume posters see its return as a potential answer to current racial tensions?
 
We do seem to be raising generations who struggle with literature, with science and with everyday real life.
Too much screen time IMO.
 
Chris Wilson said:
It's interesting that American black youth are effectively touting apartheid as an answer to inter racial violence, and somewhat remarkable given the strength of feeling claimed by black movements against it in South Africa, in not that long ago times.

Have we come full circle and some radical rethinking on the previous condemnation of it is gaining traction with American black youth?

There is some very tangible lack of condemnation for their actions in this thread, can one assume posters see its return as a potential answer to current racial tensions?
Click to expand...
I find it more interesting that a single private landlord and assumedly the 50 odd students in residence creating a supposed safe haven from 'white violence' (irregardless of the validity of that as a reason) has, in some peoples minds, become the entire black youth of America, apartheid, and supposed racism.
 
Murphy said:
find it more interesting that a single private landlord and assumedly the 50 odd students in residence creating a supposed safe haven from 'white violence' (irregardless of the validity of that as a reason) has, in some peoples minds, become the entire black youth of America, apartheid, and supposed racism.
Click to expand...

From little acorns grow mighty oaks. The anti apartheid movement in South Africa grew from small beginnings, maybe the desire of 50 or so black students in the USA to rekindle apartheid will achieve similar results.
 
LabR@t said:
Corrected the racist thread title back to read no whites
Click to expand...

I think it would be a shame to have it deleted, the mocking title change, to me, speaks volumes about how the "wrong type" of free speach is handled by those that find it uncomfortable to the mantra they wish to have conveyed in the media.
 
If this is accepted because it’s private property, does that mean me and my family are vindicated for not allowing blacks in our house?
 
I suppose its reasonable to expect some lunatics in California to do something like this since they are on another level of crazy "progressive" in that state, I'm not sure what Murphys excuse is though. It's fine for your team to be wrong sometimes
 
Chris Wilson said:
From little acorns grow mighty oaks. The anti apartheid movement in South Africa grew from small beginnings, maybe the desire of 50 or so black students in the USA to rekindle apartheid will achieve similar results.
Click to expand...
Oh, meaningless phrases, i love it. Also the anti apartheid movement didn't grow from small beginnings in SA, it was a British organisation, and it opposed institutionalised racial oppression by the state not a private landlord and a handful of students wanting to create a supposed safe space.

The point still remains though, it's interesting how some people have made the leap from a private landlord and a handful of students wanting to create a supposed safe space to OMG the entire black youth of America, this is the start of apartheid, and supposed racism.
robfosters said:
If this is accepted because it’s private property, does that mean me and my family are vindicated for not allowing blacks in our house?
Click to expand...
Depends if the courts get involved. People seem to be struggling to separate the personal judgments of what is or isn't racist and what the state (through legislation and laws) deem racist.

Whether you, i, or anyone else deems what this thread is about to be racist is a personal judgment, me personally i say it's not because they've given a reason for wanting this safe space and I'm willing to take them and the landlords judgment at face value because there's no evidence not to believe what they say is true. Others on the other-hand seemingly don't believe their reasons are valid, for some unknown reason, and think they're being racist.

If it ever goes to the courts they'll have the final say.

As for you and your family being vindicated for not allowing blacks in your house that really depends, again, on your reasons for doing so and if you, i, or anyone else think those reasons are valid. (It would be a dark day if the courts got involved in something like that IMO as then you're talking about you and your families personal freedoms).
 
Murphy said:
Oh, meaningless phrases, i love it. Also the anti apartheid movement didn't grow from small beginnings in SA, it was a British organisation, and it opposed institutionalised racial oppression by the state not a private landlord and a handful of students wanting to create a supposed safe space.

The point still remains though, it's interesting how some people have made the leap from a private landlord and a handful of students wanting to create a supposed safe space to OMG the entire black youth of America, this is the start of apartheid, and supposed racism.
Click to expand...

Oh please... When one man, for example Tommy Robinson, makes speeches deemed by some as racist, he's roundly condemned, when fifty odd students with the tacit backing of their university (have any been expelled yet?) action the very definition of apartheid, it's derided because the whole of black American youth are not involving themselves. I am not sure why you say "supposed racism"? Do by association think the Black Lives Matter movement is specious, as you imply racism in the US is "supposed"?

One can only imagine the different content of the posts here should white students have unapologetically banished blacks or homosexuals, or trans people from their lodgings....
 
robfosters said:
If this is accepted because it’s private property, does that mean me and my family are vindicated for not allowing blacks in our house?
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to be missing the key point that frat houses typically aren't private residences. In most cases they're owned by the university but may also be a corporation owned property or even the fraternity on a national level.
 
Dis86 said:
Everyone seems to be missing the key point that frat houses typically aren't private residences. In most cases they're owned by the university but may also be a corporation owned property or even the fraternity on a national level.
Click to expand...
So what exactly is this one, private residence or owned by the university?
 
Roar87 said:
I suppose its reasonable to expect some lunatics in California to do something like this since they are on another level of crazy "progressive" in that state, I'm not sure what Murphys excuse is though. It's fine for your team to be wrong sometimes
Click to expand...
I'm standing right here. There's really no need for the passive aggressive referring to people in the third person, if you don't have the courage to address me directly then fine but if you don't then maybe it's best to just say nothing.

Also it's not an excuse and it's not my 'team'. I'm not excusing anything I'm simply giving my opinion and the reasoning that went into forming that opinion, which is more than most people seem to be doing in this thread as so far no one has said why they don't believe the reason they gave for creating this safe space, 'white violence', isn't a valid reason and that in itself is rather telling IMO. Also just because you see the world in terms of my team their team it doesn't mean others think like you, some people actually form opinions based on the evidence and facts.
Chris Wilson said:
Oh please... When one man, for example Tommy Robinson, makes speeches deemed by some as racist, he's roundly condemned, when fifty odd students with the tacit backing of their university (have any been expelled yet?) action the very definition of apartheid, it's derided because the whole of black American youth are not involving themselves. I am not sure why you say "supposed racism"? Do by association think the Black Lives Matter movement is specious, as you imply racism in the US is "supposed"?

One can only imagine the different content of the posts here should white students have unapologetically banished blacks or homosexuals, or trans people from their lodgings....
Click to expand...
Yea, of course, let's all ignore the long and sordid history of waxy lemon and lets ignore the fact that i literally said whether something is or isn't racist is a personal judgment up to and until the state get involved. The fact is a majority of people deem what waxy lemon says as racist because he's got a long history of doing and saying racist things, he's got a long history of using what many people consider invalid reasons to justify his discrimination hence people make the judgment that he's racist.

When a private landlord and a handful of students want to create a supposed safe space they don't have a long history of using spurious reasons to discriminate against certain groups, you're obviously welcome to provide evidence of them using invalid reasons in the past or why you think their current reason is invalid though (i doubt you'll take up that offer for some reason).

Also they don't have the tacit backing of their university, where did you even get that idea from? Also, seriously, stop say it's apartheid. You're just making yourself look silly, ill-informed, or both. Apartheid was institutionalised racial oppression by the state, this is a private landlord and a handful of students. :rolleyes:

Also, also, no. I used the term supposed because like i said no one has put forward why they think the reason they've used for wanting this safe space isn't valid, if no one can explain why it isn't valid then it's not racism no matter how much you may want it to be.
 
Dis86 said:
This one has a private landlord. However the assumption therefore is that its operating as a business.
Click to expand...
Ok got you, so as i thought, it’s perfectly acceptable to stop anyone entering your private residence, even if your decisions are based purely on race?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom