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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Any race group can be subjected to racism or oppression. At least in the West, the 'racism' is very minor, compared to somewhere like South Africa for example, where there is currently a genocide on white people taking place, which no one cares to talk about because you know, only white people are oppressors and can never be victims.....

    'While most of the world refuses to acknowledge what is happening in largely communist-controlled South Africa, the non-profit group Genocide Watch declared last month that preparations for genocidal atrocities against white South African farmers were underway and that the early phases of genocide had possibly already begun. In the long run, Genocide Watch chief Dr. Gregory Stanton explained, powerful communist forces also hope to abolish private-property ownership and crush all potential resistance.

    According to experts and official figures, at least 3,000 white farmers in South Africa, known as Boers, have been brutally massacred over the last decade. Many more, including children and even infants, have also been raped or tortured so savagely that mere words could not possibly convey the horror. And the problem is growing worse, international human rights monitors and South African exiles say."
    Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-...unist-takeover
    Online

    15
    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.
    A privileged person's voice regarding an oppression they don't face doesn't add anything to the discussion. Privileged people take over discussions about oppression and talk over the marginalised people who experience that oppression. This drowns out the voices of the people who's voices are relevant to the discussion.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    Ah yes, it's entitlement to want everybody to have equal treatment. Disabled people should be encouraged to speak up and discuss more in the groups. Doesn't require banning other people. See ya.
    It totally doesn't work that way. Privileged people ask offensive questions (or ones they could just google but feel that marginalised people exist to explain the oppression they experience. Things like 'playing devil's advocate' are oppressive because privileged people are taught that marginalised people's experiences need to be 'debated' and that the opinions of privileged people are inherently more 'neutral' and are 'original', rather than part of the cause of the oppression.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    That is illegal discrimination.

    There are many legitimate reasons why someone who doesn't identify as possessing one of those characteristics might be interested in attending (to hear the discussion, to demonstrate solidarity).

    This is plain old discrimination, and in the 21st century it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race or sexuality. That applies to white people and heterosexuals too
    Do you know the way to be an ally to a marginalised group you are not part of? Shut the **** up and listen to them and do what THEY need you to do to fight against oppression. And if that includes staying the **** away from certain spaces, you do that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    A privileged person's voice regarding an oppression they don't face doesn't add anything to the discussion. Privileged people take over discussions about oppression and talk over the marginalised people who experience that oppression. This drowns out the voices of the people who's voices are relevant to the discussion.
    They aren't banning people based on privilege though, are they? They are banning an entire race of people, regardless of how privileged or disadvantaged the members of that group may be.

    An upper class, black student from a wealthy family will be allowed to attend this conference, and speak about whatever percieved "oppression" he thinks he faces. But a white student from a poor, working class background will not be allowed to attend or speak about genuine hardship he has faced. Is the latter voice not more relevant in a discussion about disadvantage and oppression than the privileged black student?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Whenever I see something political debated on TV its always white able bodied men talking about it. I don't think its completely right but I can see why they have done this to let others have a say for a change, people who have experiences inequality.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like a bunch of faggy black retards anyway dunno why you'd wanna go to that tbh
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I'm joking ofc
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    They aren't banning people based on privilege though, are they? They are banning an entire race of people, regardless of how privileged or disadvantaged the members of that group may be.

    An upper class, black student from a wealthy family will be allowed to attend this conference, and speak about whatever percieved "oppression" he thinks he faces. But a white student from a poor, working class background will not be allowed to attend or speak about genuine hardship he has faced. Is the latter voice not more relevant in a discussion about disadvantage and oppression than the privileged black student?
    People can be privileged in some ways and oppressed in others. Classism and oppression based on financial circumstances is an important part of discussions of oppression. Both the people on your example have privilege but also are marginalised or oppressed. However if the discussion is about racism the second student's voice isn't relevant. If the discussion is about classism then the first student's voice isn't relevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If anything, those minorities have the privilege here since if anyone (particularly a white male 'oppressor') says anything to them which might go anywhere near offending them, the media and sjwtards over at guardian hq treat it like the ****ing holocaust. You have to be super careful when speaking around minorities not to cause offense since they seem to think that just because they are in a numerical minority, they have some sort of immunity to being offended like the rest of us.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    They aren't banning people based on privilege though, are they? They are banning an entire race of people, regardless of how privileged or disadvantaged the members of that group may be.

    An upper class, black student from a wealthy family will be allowed to attend this conference, and speak about whatever percieved "oppression" he thinks he faces. But a white student from a poor, working class background will not be allowed to attend or speak about genuine hardship he has faced. Is the latter voice not more relevant in a discussion about disadvantage and oppression than the privileged black student?
    The discussion groups are for the specific issues faced by ethnic minorities/LGBT/disabled people. The working class white person may have their own hardships, but the groups are not for them. It's like going to a cancer support group and talking about the hardships you face as someone living with diabetes.

    If people feel like the hardships they face as working class people are enough to warrant a discussion group, they should start one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It amazes and worries me that people like the morons here who agree with this decision, and believe in racism against whites not being real/privilege etc. are going on to higher education.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    It totally doesn't work that way. Privileged people ask offensive questions (or ones they could just google but feel that marginalised people exist to explain the oppression they experience. Things like 'playing devil's advocate' are oppressive because privileged people are taught that marginalised people's experiences need to be 'debated' and that the opinions of privileged people are inherently more 'neutral' and are 'original', rather than part of the cause of the oppression.
    If as a marginalised person *laughs hysterically* you cannot be bothered to explain your "oppression" to someone, then don't expect them to care about it or help you. Its pure laziness. How can it be so important if you can't even take time to explain.

    Anyways **** the rest of your trash in text format.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fatima1998)
    Wow what a news :congrats:
    At least its not about Muslims :getmecoat:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    not being racist, i am muslim myself :yep:
    In fact is has nothing whatsoever to do with Muslims, so why even bring it up?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    not being racist, but Muslim isn't a race :yep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    People whine about Islam being discussed all the time on TSR.
    A thread has nothing to do with Islam and a Muslim brings up Islam.

    The hypocrisy is real :rofl:
    OMG ikr!!!

    I didn't see your post until after I responded to her's... what a joke.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    People can be privileged in some ways and oppressed in others. Classism and oppression based on financial circumstances is an important part of discussions of oppression. Both the people on your example have privilege but also are marginalised or oppressed. However if the discussion is about racism the second student's voice isn't relevant. If the discussion is about classism then the first student's voice isn't relevant.
    I was under the impression this conference was about oppression and disadvantagement in all it's forms? So why are white men in general being barred from attending, even when those from poor and disadvantaged white backgrounds would be able to contribute something meaningful to some of the discussions?

    I am finding it very difficult to see the reasoning behind this ban as anything other than irrational bigotry and hatred towards white men, from organisers who have swallowed the old social justice propaganda that all white men just live the lap of luxury, exploit everybody else and never face any hardship whatsoever. "We can just ignore and exclude those white men, they couldn't possibly have anything useful to contribute, they would probably just say a load racist and sexist things anyway, as is their nature".
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    If as a marginalised person *laughs hysterically* you cannot be bothered to explain your "oppression" to someone, then don't expect them to care about it or help you. Its pure laziness. How can it be so important if you can't even take time to explain.

    Anyways **** the rest of your trash in text format.
    If you can't be bothered to do research into some of the hardships a group of people face, why would you want to join in a discussion about the hardships that group of people face? Why would anyone want to listen to your opinion on the matter?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    I was under the impression this conference was about oppression and disadvantagement in all it's forms? So why are white men in general being barred from attending, even when those from poor and disadvantaged white backgrounds would be able to contribute something meaningful to some of the discussions?

    I am finding it very difficult to see the reasoning behind this ban as anything other than irrational bigotry and hatred towards white men, from organisers who have swallowed the old social justice propaganda that all white men just live the lap of luxury, exploit everybody else and never face any hardship whatsoever. "We can just ignore and exclude those white men, they couldn't possibly have anything useful to contribute, they would probably just say a load racist and sexist things anyway, as is their nature".
    White men aren't barred. They can go to the conference. But there are also breakaway groups for people with certain characteristics to discuss issues they face which are specific to their race/gender/sexuality/disability.

    So a black lesbian woman would not be allowed into the disability discussion and a disabled straight Asian man is barred from the LGBT group.
    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.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if - (a) on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or (b) he applies to that other a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same racial group as that other but - (i) which is such that the proportion of persons of the same racial group as that other who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group who can comply with it; and (ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it applied; and (iii) which is to the detriment of that other because he cannot comply with it." from the United Kingdom Race Relations Act 1976.

    Racism:


    the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."theories of racism"
    • prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."a programme to combat racism"


    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    The discussion groups are for the specific issues faced by ethnic minorities/LGBT/disabled people. The working class white person may have their own hardships, but the groups are not for them. It's like going to a cancer support group and talking about the hardships you face as someone living with diabetes.

    If people feel like the hardships they face as working class people are enough to warrant a discussion group, they should start one.
    Lots of people have tried to discuss issues pertaining exclusively to disadvantaged whites. They are invariably decryed as "RACISTS!!" "FASCISTS!!" "NAZIS!!" "WHITE SUPREMACISTS!!", and the issues are promptly dismissed and ignored.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChefExxxcellence)
    That doesn't make it good - you can't punish people for the actions of what some of their ancestors may or may not have done. Yes, racism against whites is a thing, just like racism against other minorities is also a thing. Let's try and end it and in order to do that, you should be letting straight white males partake in the equality conference...
    Yeah m8 I don't disagree with you
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It's not the same lol
    Great point, well made. You've really opened my eyes. My life has been changed forever.
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    Because racism is prejudice + power
    Ok so the implication here is anywhere where I do not have the power, I can make prejudiced actions without being a racist. So, if I go over to Japan and proceed to call the good people there squinty eyed *****, then I'm not being racist.

    Isn't that neat? Seems fair to me.
 
 
 
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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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

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