Can I Get An Irony Ruling Here? Racialized Students Only!

[Guest]

So if you figure someone might do something you don't like, because of what race they are and such, you should be able to stop them from coming in?

Even if you're just guessing they might do that.

Edited March 21, 2015 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

So if you figure someone might do something you don't like, because of what race they are and such, you should be able to stop them from coming in?

Wait - are we talking about Muslims now, or racists, or violent assaulters ?

Are we talking about you, or victims of violence ?

Are we talking about people who want to make up the rules to suit them, or people to make up rules that apply to all ?

[Bob Macadoo]

So if you figure someone might do something you don't like, because of what race they are and such, you should be able to stop them from coming in?

Even if you're just guessing they might do that.

If you are advertising a safe haven to people for the express purpose of shielding them from that.....hmmmm....yeah kinda do.

[Guest]

Wait - are we talking about Muslims now, or racists, or violent assaulters ?

Are we talking about you, or victims of violence ?

Are we talking about people who want to make up the rules to suit them, or people to make up rules that apply to all ?

That reads like a post that's trying to trip me up.

Are you okay with people being excluded from somewhere because of their race, based on what someone thinks they might do, or, more to the point, based on what others of their race have done?

[Guest]

If you are advertising a safe haven to people for the express purpose of shielding them from that.....hmmmm....yeah kinda do.

Shielding them from what, though? My original question was "What exactly did they think those journalists were going to do if they let them in?"

I don't think they thought they were going to do anything at all.

Edited March 21, 2015 by bcsapper

[Bob Macadoo]

Shielding them from what, though? My original question was "What exactly did they think those journalists were going to do if they let them in?"

I don't think they thought they were going to do anything at all.

I answered your question.....or were you napping there? Or you just didn't like the honesty?

[Michael Hardner]

Are you okay with people being excluded from somewhere because of their race, based on what someone thinks they might do, or, more to the point, based on what others of their race have done?

I'm not sure but that's not what happened here. Try to think of these things in positive ways. A safe space is just a place where people with things in common can talk... it's not about keeping people out, nor it should be, but about gathering people with something in common.

[Guest]

I answered your question.....or were you napping there? Or you just didn't like the honesty?

Napping. I like honesty.

To be honest myself, I don't think they excluded them because they were journalists. I don't think they excluded them because of what they might write. As I read the article, it looks like their career choice was secondary to their colour.

That said, though, is that a good reason to deny journalists access? (forgetting about the colour for a moment)

[Guest]

I'm not sure but that's not what happened here. Try to think of these things in positive ways. A safe space is just a place where people with things in common can talk... it's not about keeping people out, nor it should be, but about gathering people with something in common.

The point is, who gets to decide what's safe? Can anyone be excluded from anything if one person on the door decides what is safe and what isn't? No redress, just an opinion that stands.

The idea that someone can be barred from a public place solely because of what someone else of their race might have done does not seem to be a situation that the left would embrace.

[Bob Macadoo]

Napping. I like honesty.

To be honest myself, I don't think they excluded them because they were journalists. I don't think they excluded them because of what they might write. As I read the article, it looks like their career choice was secondary to their colour.

That said, though, is that a good reason to deny journalists access? (forgetting about the colour for a moment)

Again....answered. You think they weren't asked why they were there?

Journalists can't even get access to Access to Info documents without being redacted....or runaround but journalists should have free pass here?

[Bob Macadoo]

The point is, who gets to decide what's safe?

Certainly not those who believe everyone's a whiner and should buck-up then be thankful their not "back home" being stoned to death.

[Michael Hardner]

The point is, who gets to decide what's safe?

I think if you think about it as something positive, then common sense should make it clear.

The idea that someone can be barred from a public place solely because of what someone else of their race might have done does not seem to be a situation that the left would embrace.

I would actually feel different about an actual "public space" ... being a space where members of the public could wander in. Booking a meeting room at Ryerson, though, I'm ok with. Good point to bring up, though.

[Guest]

Again....answered. You think they weren't asked why they were there?

Journalists can't even get access to Access to Info documents without being redacted....or runaround but journalists should have free pass here?

If you are of the opinion they were denied access because they were journalists, and such denial was nothing to do with their colour, then you read the OP differently from me. I would still think that a University would be a place where journalists were not denied access to a public meeting, but if we're ascribing levels, it's not as bad as being denied access due to their colour.

[Bob Macadoo]

If you are of the opinion they were denied access because they were journalists, and such denial was nothing to do with their colour, then you read the OP differently from me. I would still think that a University would be a place where journalists were not denied access to a public meeting, but if we're ascribing levels, it's not as bad as being denied access due to their colour.

It has everything to do with their colour....its the entire point.....but their final denial of entry were as journalists. Why do you think white journalists were sent in the first place?

1) Non-white journalists refused as they understood the privacy of the affair.

2) White journalists were specifically sent to gin up the controversy of it.

[Guest]

It has everything to do with their colour....its the entire point.....but their final denial of entry were as journalists. Why do you think white journalists were sent in the first place?

1) Non-white journalists refused as they understood the privacy of the affair.

2) White journalists were specifically sent to gin up the controversy of it.

I didn't see those points in the article. Did you get them from somewhere else?

[Bob Macadoo]

I didn't see those points in the article. Did you get them from somewhere else?

That's some tasty debating....you spend multiple posts interpreting what you feel happened in the situation....then when faced with supposition you now all of a sudden want to retreat into the article? Nice.

[Guest]

That's some tasty debating....you spend multiple posts interpreting what you feel happened in the situation....then when faced with supposition you now all of a sudden want to retreat into the article? Nice.

I don't think I did that at all. I think I stuck pretty much to what I read in the OP. I didn't look for another source, so it might be I'm affected by the bias of the writer of the article, if one exists.

I assume you did find another source. Let me know what it is and I'll gladly read it, and amend my conclusions if necessary.

[Guest]

I think if you think about it as something positive, then common sense should make it clear.

I would actually feel different about an actual "public space" ... being a space where members of the public could wander in. Booking a meeting room at Ryerson, though, I'm ok with. Good point to bring up, though.

One would assume then, that given a number of different meetings excluding a number of different races/colours, etc, that you would arbitrarily decide which was positive and which was not. That doesn't seem right to me.

I also made the assumption here, that a public meeting was a public space.

I understand this is fairly benign. I'm not arguing for anyone to be jailed, or fired, or kicked off campus. I just find it passing strange that there are good reasons for this type of discrimination, and that they are so easily accepted.

Edited March 21, 2015 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

One would assume then, that given a number of different meetings excluding a number of different races/colours, etc, that you would arbitrarily decide which was positive and which was not. That doesn't seem right to me.

I also made the assumption here, that a public meeting was a public space.

I understand this is fairly benign. I'm not arguing for anyone to be jailed, or fired, or kicked off campus. I just find it passing strange that there are good reasons for this type of discrimination, and that they are so easily accepted.

Well, I won't deny that it's strange in some cases and that we could come up with examples that would feel better/worse to people, in general. But safe spaces, in general, sound like a good idea to me, if people want them.

[Argus]

Are you okay with people being excluded from somewhere because of their race, based on what someone thinks they might do, or, more to the point, based on what others of their race have done?

If they're white men I'm guessing the answer is 'sure'.

[Argus]

I'm not sure but that's not what happened here. Try to think of these things in positive ways. A safe space is just a place where people with things in common can talk... it's not about keeping people out, nor it should be, but about gathering people with something in common.

So... like mens clubs, right, which didn't want to admit women?

[Michael Hardner]

So... like mens clubs, right, which didn't want to admit women?

I don't actually have a problem with men's organizations being for men only. But the important question is "What is the purpose of the organization ?".

A men's support group, talking about sensitive matters, for example. Why should women be admitted there ? I don't see why.

Our culture of sexism, racism is based on exclusion and segregation but the simple presence of exclusion and segregation don't necessarily mean sexism and racism are happening

[cybercoma]

There's men's only AA groups and I'm sure other types of support groups too.

[The_Squid]

There's men's only AA groups and I'm sure other types of support groups too.

Because it's a "safe space" to deal with one's issues...

I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp about that concept for people like Argus.

[Bob Macadoo]

Because it's a "safe space" to deal with one's issues...

I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp about that concept for people like Argus.

B/c whiners only discuss their problems......real men hate Muslims.