Political Cartoons

They forcibly prevented student reporters from talking to other students at the protest. Later there was some attempt to create safe spaces for discussion of racial issues, but denied white students access to participate in the conversation.

There are plenty of articles on the MU protest: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-campus-activists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

So oppressed....

From:

No, it's not a big deal, just lefties being lefties, I just like to see the flag thrown.

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

Would you like me to apologize to that student cub reporter?

From:

Later there was some attempt to create safe spaces for discussion of racial issues, but denied white students access to participate in the conversation.

And this is somehow wrong? Please explain.

From:

You don't see anything wrong with racially segregating a group of students who want to discuss racial inequality on campus?

From:

No. It would be like a creating a safe place for the discussion of sexual assault by separating those who suffer it and those who perpetrate it.

From:

Good analogy!

From:

No. It would be like creating a place for the discussion of campus sexual assault and then separating the men and women. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that all men (white students) are rapists (racists).

From:

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that all men (white students) are rapists (racists).

Not all "men (white students)" per se, but the perpetrators of sexual assault/racism do tend to be in that subset of society.

Consider the flip-side of the argument. Are you suggesting we shouldn't allow the victims of the guilty to meet without oversight by the guilty?

From:

Again, you're implying they're guilty because they're white. Students who want to have a discussion/protest about racial discrimination shouldn't engage in racial stereotyping or racial segregation. If they're so emotionally disturbed that they're triggered by the mere presence of a white student, then they probably shouldn't be at a protest that *should* be about racial unity.

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

Unisex bathrooms for all then.

From:

Again, you're implying they're guilty because they're white.

No, you are. I think that's the problem. Individual guilt is not relevant here.

If they're so emotionally disturbed that they're triggered by the mere presence of a white student, then they probably shouldn't be at a protest that *should* be about racial unity.

Wait, a bunch of people meet to discuss something important to them and you dictate what "*should*" be on the agenda?!? Dude . . . really? Wow.

We might just have identified the problem. If someone—and that could well mean you—has never suffered the kind of persistent denigration sadly often suffered by racial, gender, religious, and sexual/gender orientation minorities in a society, that someone might very well not understand why those students acted as they did.

From:

Way to miss the entire point.

From:

garote

Black men tend to commit more crime. To discuss the problem of crime, we should clearly convene a city council meeting, but exclude all the black people.

Whaaaaaaaaattttttt.

From:

Black men tend to be arrested and prosecuted for crimes more often, though they are often innocent of the crimes. To discuss the problem of this targeting, we should clearly convene an initial meeting, but exclude the cops that swing their truncheons all too often at black men.

[Fixed that for you.]

From:

garote

Nice try. But you have built a broken analogy, akin to declaring a meeting with the charter "whites allowed, but not the racist ones."

That ain't what they declared.

From:

Actually, it's your analogy that's broken. Consider: why would anyone meet with the theme you suggested? That's just silly. Why? The only apparent trait that the racist whites have is their skin color. How would anyone know (except from past association) which are the racist whites and which were the "good" ones?

The first step to determining a situation is to isolate the common cause of the situation and try to determine the commonalities among those that suffered under the situation.

As to the fact that they met in a "public" place, here's a question: what places are there for spontaneous gatherings of large groups that aren't public? Insisting that all public places be accessed by all of the public is a good thought . . . until one runs into that Catch-22.

From:

garote

Well, the glib answer is, "the Internet". A large group of people can spontaneously gather in a virtual environment, completely sidestepping the issue of public space.

But that's not the issue at hand, since we're not talking about rights being violated - yet. (Though denying someone access to an event in a public space based on their skin color would be a good example.) We're talking about whether a group that deliberately charters a gathering to exclude an ethnicity, in order to discuss their grievances towards that entire ethnicity without being overheard, is racist behavior.

This isn't "cops" or even "cops who tend to beat up black people". This is an ethnicity. "White people."

Are you denying the racism inherent in the behavior? Do you think it makes sense to claim the behavior is not racist because the group that's excluded is seen as "the oppressor"? The line gets even thinner when you consider the KKK, which holds meetings under the belief that white people are oppressed by the "violent, crude behavior" they observe in non-whites, and all that bullshit about protecting their "white women"...

From:

What's weird here is that I'm of European extraction. I'm white. And I am not at all threatened by a group of people for whatever reason gathering peacefully in a public space and asking that they not be disturbed. Yet, according to your logic, I should be. I should be up in arms, at that.

Why are you so threatened by this simple act?

From:

garote

Ooops. Phone ate my earlier reply. But it was short:

Me personally? I'm not. But I don't condone it, and I am comfortable labeling it racism. My beef is with those who would try to recast racist behavior as progressive by changing the label to "creating a safe space", and more generally, those who support the effort to abdicate our collective responsibility to free speech in favor of "not being upset".

From:

[LJ doesn't want to let me post this as a reply to the comment I'm trying to reply to! I'm therefore editing to add the text I was responding to.]

What's weird here is that I'm of European extraction. I'm white. And I am not at all threatened by a group of people for whatever reason gathering peacefully in a public space and asking that they not be disturbed.

I'm of European extraction also. (Mostly British with a soupcon of German, if anyone cares.) I'm so white I'm practically transparent, and this doesn't make me feel threatened either.

Different strokes for different (white) folks, I guess!

Edited Date: 2015-12-09 02:32 am (UTC)

From:

[This reply didn't post where I was trying to put it. I thought it was my fault, but a subsequent attempt convinced me LJ is just being a butt munch tonight. I deleted the original content of this because it appears elsewhere in the thread.]

Edited Date: 2015-12-09 02:34 am (UTC)

From: