University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions

First topic message reminder :

Edinburgh University has been slated for hosting an event where white people will be banned from asking questions - which has been described as 'blatantly racist'.

A Q&A event - Resisting Whiteness 2019 - will bar Caucasian guests from speaking from the floor.

There will also be two 'safe spaces' - one of which white people are banned from entering.

University bosses have 'raised concerns' about aspects of the event.

The event will take place on Saturday at the prestigious university, with the intention of 'amplifying the voices of people of colour' and giving 'people of colour a platform to talk'.

The all-day event costs up to £20 to attend, and will be held at the Pleasance Theatre.

A blurb says: 'We will therefore not be giving the microphone to white people during the Q&As, not because we don't think white people have anything to offer to the discussion, but because we want to amplify the voices of people of colour.

'If you are a white person with a question, please share it with a member of the committee or our speakers after the panel discussion.'

And it explains why white people have been barred from one of the 'safe spaces' - for people to retreat if they feel 'overwhelmed/overstimulated or uncomfortable'.

It said: 'The Braid room is a safe space for only people of colour, and the Cheviot room is available for anyone who needs it.'

Anti-racism campaigner Jane McColl, 42, of Glasgow said: 'This event is blatantly racist.

'It sets back the battle to achieve equality and fairness by decades, all because of the actions of a tiny group of extremists, whose perverse sense of logic has led them to belittle white people, not by who they are as individuals, by merely because of their skin colour.

'Imagine if this event was called 'Resisting Blackness' and non-white people were told they could not ask questions, nor access a room because they were the 'wrong' colour.'

A spokesman for the University of Edinburgh said: 'Tackling racism is an important topic for debate and the University is supportive of events addressing this issue.

'However, we are an organisation that places great value on issues around equality and voice.

'Consequently the University has met with the event organisers to ensure the event is compliant with our values.

'We have expressed our concerns to them about certain aspects of the format of the event and they are revising their 'safe space' policy for the conference as a result.'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7513201/Edinburgh-University-accused-racism-conference-white-people-ask-questions.html

phil wrote:He only sees this through a one lens view of colour and bases this of a small fraction of history and goegraphically.

It's more than color. Any lesser idea suffers from the same bias. Look how popular 'war' was after WWII. We rushed into Korea and Vietnam with the same guhng-ho spirit.

Gradually, tho, an improved media began to show us the reality. But look how hard it was to put that message across: they were kooks, bearded santa clauses, peaceniks, commie bastards, gook-lovers...all manner of epithets and venom were hurled at the holders of this new idea that war is not good.

Racism is an important bias today, true. But the main thesis is that any lesser idea has to overcome a bias just to be heard.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:He only sees this through a one lens view of colour and bases this of a small fraction of history and goegraphically.

It's more than color.  Any lesser idea suffers from the same bias.  Look how popular 'war' was after WWII.  We rushed into Korea and Vietnam with the same guhng-ho spirit.

Gradually, tho, an improved media began to show us the reality.  But look how hard it was to put that message across: they were kooks, bearded santa clauses, peaceniks, commie bastards, gook-lovers...all manner of epithets and venom were hurled at the holders of this new idea that war is not good.

Racism is an important bias today, true.  But the main thesis is that any lesser idea has to overcome a bias just to be heard.

Well I would say the US had no idea on how to win conflicts like the British did with Communist insurgencies.
In fact if the British could have resolved the Vietnam conflict and had the communists on the run when they controlled Indo-china. I mean you leftiest idiots would have sat by given the chance and wtached the extinction of Jews. Your voiew is to never interfere when genocide is happenning. Because you fear reprecussions. What a fucking sorry state of affairs that is how humans have become so selfish. They would rather take the view to sit by and wtach people die. Claiming as you do, its not your problem. What a selfish bunch of arseholes humanity has become

So your view on the colour of skin is absurd, dum and completely irrelevant based off conflicts. Even more when these communist regimes murdered tens of millions.

The worrying part is I saw this today and people actually cheered the execution of a landlord under communist China

https://twitter.com/Rose_Of_Dawn/status/1180151516038139905

phil wrote:Well I would say the US had no idea on how to win conflicts like the British did with Communist insurgencies.

I tend to agree.  I think the British are cunning and very intelligent.  But remember, the US has southerners to contend with.  Southerners are intellectual lazy, and tend to follow tribal ideology rather than rational thought.

A person from Massachusetts or Washington might be more cunning and incisive, but here in the US we have to deal with a consensus that includes the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas.

Their creed is guns and race, not comprehension and understanding...not talk, and not even thinking things through.  They score about .01 on the intellectual scale.  That's what having slaves to do everything for you will do to your mental agility.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Well I would say the US had no idea on how to win conflicts like the British did with Communist insurgencies.

I tend to agree.  I think the British are cunning and very intelligent.  But remember, the US has southerners to contend with.  Southerners are intellectual lazy, and tend to follow tribal ideology rather than rational thought.

A person from Massachusetts or Washington might be more cunning and incisive, but here in the US we have to deal with a consensus that includes the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas.

Their creed is guns and race, not comprehension and understanding...not talk, and not even thinking things through.  They score about .01 on the intellectual scale.  That's what having slaves to do everything for you will do to your mental agility.

You see yet again a prejudice view, where again Ben for example is a Southerner. To place such sterotypes on people, is essentially on the same path of racism. As you are condemning and judging people based geographically. The fact that you never have faith in people itself in that people have progressed over time and changed. This being even more true that texas could become a Democratic state. Shows how blinkered you are in looking at issues. You use a poor and prejudiced outlook at issues, but the biggest problem again. Is that you yourself can be and at times be as racist as the Far right and you fail to see that.

If you hold such a dogmatic outlook and view of people. What makes you any different than racists here?

Sertiously

+1

phil wrote:To place such sterotypes on people, is essentially on the same path of racism.

Are you not placing such a stereotype on me?  It's the same path to racism.

phil wrote:As you are condemning and judging people based geographically.

Are/were not the Germans based geographically?  If not, during WWII why did we direct our bombers to drop bombs geographically?

phil wrote:The fact that you never have faith in people itself in that people have progressed over time and changed.

After doing extreme wrong, people must prove their "progression over time".  Southerners have done quite the opposite.  Ask Sandra Bland or James Byrd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.

phil wrote:This being even more true that texas could become a Democratic state.

With voter suppression?

phil wrote:If you hold such a dogmatic outlook and view of people.

I use the same judgments as you.  Don't you condemn Muslim culture?  Don’t you favor taking geography away from them?  Don’t you favor a Eurocentric culture over Muslim people?  Don't you reject and criticize women who claim to have been raped?  We think the same way on logic, only I’m on the proper side on principle.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:To place such sterotypes on people, is essentially on the same path of racism.

Are you not placing such a stereotype on me?  It's the same path to racism.

phil wrote:Reverse psychology its not going to work here. I am being critical of your thinking and ideology. Not you as an individual. So poor deflection

Are/were not the Germans based geographically?  If not, during WWII why did we direct our bombers to bomb geographically?

phil wrote:It was a flawed strategy. Thinking that we could bomb Germany into submission, but it did end up being a tactical success. Drawing away the majority of German fights to protect Germany. Thus gaining the allies superiority over the battlefields. That was a conflict started by the Nazi's. Which again you would have not acted based on your beliefs and allowed for even more millions to suffer in the death camps.

After doing extreme wrong, people must prove their "progression over time".  Southerners have done quite the opposite.  Ask Sandra Bland or James Byrd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.

phil wrote:Why do I need to ask someone else? As seen progression is happening but you do not look at people indvidually. You look at them as a geographical group to judge. When many hold differening views. It should be the views and beliefs that you condemn. As I do with you

With voter suppression.

phil wrote:What voter suppression?

I use the same judgments as you do.  Don't you condemn Muslim culture?  Don’t you favor taking geography away from them?  Don’t you favor of a Eurocentric culture over Muslims?  Don't you reject and criticize women who claim to have been raped?  We think the same way on logic, only I’m on the proper side on principle.

I condemn ideologies and beliefs, but not Muslims as a people. I condemn invidual extrem Muslims for their acts. See the difference?
I dont favour any ethnic culture. I favour a secular democratic system. An Islamic Theocracy is no different to Christian one. Both fail to provide equality and allow for the well being of people. Hence I will openly speak out against what I see as wrong. So you are not on the proper side on principle, because you only care selfishly, for what is your own tribalistic group politically.

phil wrote:I condemn ideologies and beliefs, but not Muslims as a people. I condemn invidual extrem Muslims for their acts. See the difference?

Precisely!  That is the same way I feel about southerners:

*  I condemn their ideologies and beliefs.

*  I do not condemn southerners as people; many liberal southerners are to be distinguished from the ideology of the south.

*  I condemn individual, extreme southerners for their acts (eg, Bland, Byrd, etc.).

phil wrote:An Islamic Theocracy is no different to Christian one. Both fail to provide equality and allow for the well being of people.

This is precisely my issue with the southern culture.  Only, as you see, ideology goes beyond mere religions.

phil wrote:Hence I will openly speak out against what I see as wrong.

Exactly.  We are not even talking about individuals, except when they are guided by cultural norms.  It is in southern cultural norms that we see the failing "to provide equality and allowing for the well beings of the people".

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:I condemn ideologies and beliefs, but not Muslims as a people. I condemn invidual extrem Muslims for their acts. See the difference?

Precisely!  That is the same way I feel about southerners:

*  I condemn their ideologies and beliefs.

*  I do not condemn southerners as people; many liberal southerners are to be distinguished from the ideology of the south.

*  I condemn individual, extreme southerners for their acts (eg, Bland, Byrd, etc.).

phil wrote:You are not condemning beliefs or an ideology. You are condemning a group of people based geographically. Its as bas as when white supremacists condemn black people based on high levels of crime with Black people. You are making views on southerners as a people, when they are ethnically and politically diverse

This is precisely my issue with the southern culture.  Only, as you see, ideology goes beyond mere religions.

phil wrote:What southern culture do you speak of? Food? Dress? Music? Are you saying Ben is guilty of this Southern Culture?

Exactly.  We are not even talking about individuals, except when they are guided by cultural norms.  It is in southern cultural norms that we see the failing "to provide equality and allowing for the well beings of the people".

I am talking about individuals and you are prejudice aagainst southerns as a people.
Your methodology would back the same thinking of racists against blacks on crime
Your view would condemn all Muslims based off islamic extremism
Hence you still fail to seer the difference.
Its up to people what they believe. Its up[ to people to be critical of beliefs.
Its not okay to hold sterotypical prejudice views off groups of people. To then use this as a means to discriminate against them. As you become what you fear and detest the most. Being exactly like those who are racially prejudice.

phil wrote:I am talking about individuals and you are prejudice aagainst southerns as a people.

Oh dear. Same as you and Muslims.

I thought we had agreed that it was the ideology that we were talking about. Well, OK...rail against Muslim people if you wish.

I will still maintain that my indictment goes to the ideology.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:I am talking about individuals and you are prejudice aagainst southerns as a people.

Oh dear.  Same as you and Muslims.

I thought we had agreed that it was the ideology that we were talking about.  Well, OK...rail against Muslim people if you wish.

I will still maintain that my indictment goes to the ideology.

More whatboutism. Again my view is on the acts that people do and being critical of beliefs.
The majority of Muslim and Southern people are good people. Some just hold poor beliefs. Some hold even hateful beliefs. Some commit the worst acts based from their beliefs. Its the beliefs you should be openly critical of and the acts of people.
So no matter how poorly and badly you attempt to say things I have not said. Says more about you wanting to to use me as a means to back your prejudice. It shows you want to find a way to do this by looking at me to find a similar prejudice and you cannot find this, but its clear you goal. Is to find relevance in others to allow for your prejudice and discrimination of people

You are looking at the wrong person. You need to look towards those you claim to hate. White supremacists. As you will find more common ground together in your prejudice than you will with me.

Go figure

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Oh dear.  Same as you and Muslims.

I thought we had agreed that it was the ideology that we were talking about.  Well, OK...rail against Muslim people if you wish.

I will still maintain that my indictment goes to the ideology.

More whatboutism. Again my view is on the acts that people do and being critical of beliefs.
The majority of Muslim and Southern people are good people. Some just hold poor beliefs. Some hold even hateful beliefs. Some commit the worst acts based from their beliefs. Its the beliefs you should be openly critical of and the acts of people.
So no matter how poorly and badly you attempt to say things I have not said. Says more about you wanting to to use me as a means to back your prejudice. It shows you want to find a way to do this by looking at me to find a similar prejudice and you cannot find this, but its clear you goal. Is to find relevance in others to allow for your prejudice and discrimination of people

You are looking at the wrong person. You need to look towards those you claim to hate. White supremacists. As you will find more common ground together in your prejudice than you will with me.

Go figure

WHATABOUTISM!

I teach you new tricks, and you spend a year or two figuring out where to use them.

So I take that reply as Quill bowing out. As he simple cannot rise to the challenge of debate

Next

What debate? You're just repeating yourself. At that point I figger I've already won.