Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

WHITE MAN BAN Straight white able bodied men banned from attending top equality confe Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wickedisgood)
    Racism against white people is not a thing. You can be prejudiced to white people, you can't be racist. Racism is based on systematic oppression and power structures that suggest that there is a race that is superior to others. White people have the power in society and do not experience oppression on the basis of their race, therefore it's not racism.

    I do think it doesn't make sense to not allow straight, white, able-bodied men at all though; maybe they should have just had a maximum number or something.

    But it's funny how if this was reversed and it was another all-white-guys conference and a minority group complained about it, they'd say people were overreacting and it wasn't a big deal.
    HAHAHAHA oh goodddd the indoctrination and victim culture is so real


    Oh really?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/spo...s-support.html

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7065606.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    I do not understand how this isn't seen as badly as stuff like this:


    It's exactly the same thing, just under different reasoning.
    Because racism is prejudice + power

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multiculturalism)
    Is there a reason you are using an ape gif? Are you trying to imply something?
    It is my favourite clapping gif.

    Are you trying to infer something?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multiculturalism)
    Is there a reason you are using an ape gif? Are you trying to imply something?
    Only a racist would think that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    The stupidity of this statement is truly something behold.

    You even give the definition and then you try so hard to say the definition is wrong.



    Read the definition again.
    Nothing you say will change the fact that racism = prejudice + power

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    Nothing you say will change the fact that racism = prejudice + power

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It isn't a fact. The true definition is a fact, not your opinion on what the true definition is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wickedisgood)
    Racism against white people is not a thing. You can be prejudiced to white people, you can't be racist. Racism is based on systematic oppression and power structures that suggest that there is a race that is superior to others. White people have the power in society and do not experience oppression on the basis of their race, therefore it's not racism.

    I do think it doesn't make sense to not allow straight, white, able-bodied men at all though; maybe they should have just had a maximum number or something.

    But it's funny how if this was reversed and it was another all-white-guys conference and a minority group complained about it, they'd say people were overreacting and it wasn't a big deal.
    Racism against white people is a thing, because guess what twit, people of colour are not incapable of being racist! It's that darned simple. Your phony definition of racism holds no water against anybody with a half a wit about them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The white straight able-bodied man victim complex is so strong in this thread. You read one article that wildly misrepresented what is actually happening at the conference, so I think you guys should maybe learn to read a bit more critically when it comes to things like this, and move on with your lives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    Nothing you say will change the fact that racism = prejudice + power

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Please show me the dictionary where that definition exists. Then prove that every layman usage of the term is using that definition rather than the primary definition of "prejudice and discrimination based on race".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's always fun to get outraged over stupid ****, but I don't see why this is a problem. They want to gather people of minority groups because they'll have similar experiences, and the content is more relevant to them.

    I went to an autism group once. You had to be autistic to go. Are we going to kick off about that too?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    It's always fun to get outraged over stupid ****, but I don't see why this is a problem. They want to gather people of minority groups because they'll have similar experiences, and the content is more relevant to them.

    I went to an autism group once. You had to be autistic to go. Are we going to kick off about that too?
    It's one thing to want to gather a certain group of people to have their experiences, it's entirely another to ban a certain category of people and disallow their experiences. And why should they just want minority views, that seems to be suggesting only minorities can experience inequality which is factually incorrect.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    They're not banned from the conference. If I recall correctly, they're banned from breakaways discussion groups, rather than the main conference. So there's a conference that everyone attends, then they have breakaway groups where people with protected characteristics (ie LGBT, ethnic minorities and disabled) discuss issues affecting them. So yes, an able bodied straight white man can't attend the discussion group for disabled people, but neither can an able bodied lesbian black woman. And a disabled lesbian white woman can't attend the discussion group for ethnic minorities and so on and so forth.

    The ban was introduced because apparently, people without the protected characteristics were the dominating discussion groups. It makes sense to me.
    I think it's important to discourage white males from attending/supporting equality anyway, you'd have to be plain stupid. What self respecting white male goes around saying the white male oppresses people, and that they're to blame, when he is one lmao.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wickedisgood)
    Racism against white people is not a thing. You can be prejudiced to white people, you can't be racist. Racism is based on systematic oppression and power structures that suggest that there is a race that is superior to others. White people have the power in society and do not experience oppression on the basis of their race, therefore it's not racism.

    I do think it doesn't make sense to not allow straight, white, able-bodied men at all though; maybe they should have just had a maximum number or something.

    But it's funny how if this was reversed and it was another all-white-guys conference and a minority group complained about it, they'd say people were overreacting and it wasn't a big deal.
    Ludicrous. Racism is defined as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." It has nothing to do with power structures. You can be racist to any race, including white people and it's actually really common in some parts of London.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conservationofmass)
    I think it's important to discourage white males from attending/supporting equality anyway, you'd have to be plain stupid. What self respecting white male goes around saying the white male oppresses people, and that they're to blame, when he is one lmao.
    yawn
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    Sincerely, **** you lady. What was "wildly misrepresented"? Why shouldn't we care that racism is being openly allowed?
    I'm gonna copy and paste from my previous post and from Shumaya's that are on the last page that you obviously didn't read.

    Mine: "That whole thing has been misrepresented... They ARE invited to the conference, but there are separate workshops for minority groups. Like for instance, why would a black woman want to attend a workshop that was directly aimed at a gay disabled guy?? Why would a white straight able-bodied man want to hear a lecture that was about the difficulties of being a black disabled lesbian? They're not banned from the entire conference... people need to use their freaking heads when it comes to this stuff. Jesus."

    Shumaya: "They're not banned from the conference. If I recall correctly, they're banned from breakaways discussion groups, rather than the main conference. So there's a conference that everyone attends, then they have breakaway groups where people with protected characteristics (ie LGBT, ethnic minorities and disabled) discuss issues affecting them. So yes, an able bodied straight white man can't attend the discussion group for disabled people, but neither can an able bodied lesbian black woman. And a disabled lesbian white woman can't attend the discussion group for ethnic minorities and so on and so forth.

    The ban was introduced because apparently, people without the protected characteristics were the dominating discussion groups. It makes sense to me."

    How can it be racism btw?! I seriously don't get it. Are white men victims? Do you want to invade a group of black lesbians and demand your voice to be heard when it's nothing to do with you? For Gods sake.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LannaBanana)
    I'm gonna copy and paste from my previous post and from Shumaya's that are on the last page that you obviously didn't read.

    Mine: "That whole thing has been misrepresented... They ARE invited to the conference, but there are separate workshops for minority groups. Like for instance, why would a black woman want to attend a workshop that was directly aimed at a gay disabled guy?? Why would a white straight able-bodied man want to hear a lecture that was about the difficulties of being a black disabled lesbian? They're not banned from the entire conference... people need to use their freaking heads when it comes to this stuff. Jesus."

    Shumaya: "They're not banned from the conference. If I recall correctly, they're banned from breakaways discussion groups, rather than the main conference. So there's a conference that everyone attends, then they have breakaway groups where people with protected characteristics (ie LGBT, ethnic minorities and disabled) discuss issues affecting them. So yes, an able bodied straight white man can't attend the discussion group for disabled people, but neither can an able bodied lesbian black woman. And a disabled lesbian white woman can't attend the discussion group for ethnic minorities and so on and so forth.

    The ban was introduced because apparently, people without the protected characteristics were the dominating discussion groups. It makes sense to me."

    How can it be racism btw?! I seriously don't get it. Are white men victims? Do you want to invade a group of black lesbians and demand your voice to be heard when it's nothing to do with you? For Gods sake.
    I'll agree then that it has been misrepresented in the sense that it's not a ban from the whole conference. However it's still discriminatory to ban them from attending the groups, even if they wouldn't be interested in attending. The solution to there not being enough representation from the minority groups isn't banning the other people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    It's one thing to want to gather a certain group of people to have their experiences, it's entirely another to ban a certain category of people and disallow their experiences. And why should they just want minority views, that seems to be suggesting only minorities can experience inequality which is factually incorrect.
    Of course anyone can experience inequality, but minorities will have a unique perspective on it.

    They did want to gather a certain group - people belonging to some sort of minority. I think people are far too sensitive too this in general. We shouldn't kick off over people only wanting to gather minorities, but we also shouldn't kick off over people only wanting to gather straight white males. It shouldn't be a problem. If you don't want me to attend your *****y conference, I won't attend it.

    Obviously it's a problem at some point, like if you're discriminating against job candidates, but getting upset over being denied access to a conference is just petty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    crikey
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wickedisgood)
    Living in one of the 'most tolerant' countries doesn't mean oppression doesn't still exist in a systematic sense. Women do not have equal pay, the majority of the higher ups in this country are white men, although it's under the radar and hard to prove, there's still high chances of people of colour losing out on jobs due to their race. Things are improving, I know that, but it's not fully gone at all.

    Maybe people aren't actively saying 'these groups of people are bad', but saying that there is no oppression and that everyone is treated equally in terms of 'the system' would be ignorant.
    Your talking about social inequality which is a massive problem I agree, arguably class based discrimination is the biggest thing holding people back irrespective of race. It's no coincidence that the countries with the least income disparity within their populations generally have the lowest levels of crime.

    As regards to the risk of being sacked from a job, there's less chance of it due to fear of being accused of racism. I know first hand from working with Asian and white people and seeing the Asians get away with murder in comparison.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    It's always fun to get outraged over stupid ****, but I don't see why this is a problem. They want to gather people of minority groups because they'll have similar experiences, and the content is more relevant to them.

    I went to an autism group once. You had to be autistic to go. Are we going to kick off about that too?
    If that's the case then I don't see why straight white men would even turn up in the first place. It's completely unnecessary to ban them.

    Someone who isn't autistic wouldn't turn up to an autism group. Why would you need to ban them?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 13, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.