Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday October 29 2016, @02:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the whatever-happened-to-DEsegregation? dept.

The Washington Times reports a story about protesters on the UC Berkeley campus physically blocking white students from accessing a bridge while police stand by and watch:

Students at the University of California, Berkeley held a day of protest on Friday to demand the creation of additional “safe spaces” for transgender and nonwhite students, during which a human chain was formed on a main campus artery to prevent white students from getting to class.

The demonstrators were caught on video blocking Berkeley’s Sather Gate, holding large banners advocating the creation of physical spaces segregated by race and gender identity, including one that read “Fight 4 Spaces of Color.”

Protesters can be heard shouting “Go around!” to white students who attempt to go through the blockade, while students of color are greeted with calls of “Let him through!”

Students turned away by the mob are later shown filing through trees and ducking under branches in order to cross Strawberry Creek, which runs underneath the bridge.

The protests were a response to a Safe Space being moved from the fifth floor of a building down to the basement.


[Original version of this story had "UCLA"; corrected to: "UC Berkeley" -Ed.]

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:22PM (#420292)

    > If you want to make up a new word to describe the problem as you see it, go ahead.

    You can always count on dictionary pedants to fail to actually read the dictionary. You types pick and choose the definition you like and pretend all the other definitions are invalid.

    Racism has always been about systems of power that enforce inequality. The fact that it can also be about individual prejudice does not negate the systemic definition.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism [merriam-webster.com]

    Definition of racism

    1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
    2. a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
      b : a political or social system founded on racism
    3. racial prejudice or discrimination
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:37PM (#420301)

    Ah, I understand now: when blocking a white guy from using a public accomodation for being "a racist", he's actually being called "a political or social system based on racism" based solely on said individual's skin color.

    I got it now, thanks for explaining. It all makes sense once you once again misappropriate definitions for uses they are obviously not applicable to.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @10:54PM (#420317)

      So not only do you fail to read the dictionary, you fail to read the thread you are posting in. You know, the one where systemic power was explicitly described: [soylentnews.org]

      It's very much a "sins of the father" deal, one predicated on the notion that children continue to reap the benefits of the sins of the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. and the entire race. Those benefits are the "privilege" of which students now speak.

      Maybe you should consider giving up on pedantry to excuse bigotry and start actually caring about the effects of bigotry.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:12PM (#420326)

        Yeah, I sure know that I'm responsible for the sins of my fathers, all my mighty and unearned privilege and esteem. Wait - hold on; Jim on the back forty is acting up again. Okay, I'm back - goin' to have to switch off arms lest all that whippin' ruin my superior genetic symmetry.

        You do realize that the very comment you linked to (and I defended when it was modded -1, Troll) is attacking the idea of collective racism of currently-living white-skinned people based upon the supposed [globalresearch.ca] monopoly [ancient-origins.net] on slavery [townhall.com] by white-skinned people?

        Perhaps you mistake my evisceration of your tripe as support for the status quo; if so, you are mistaken. I'm extremely anti-slavery to the point where I recognize the current USA to be one big de facto slave state owned by a sizable-but-not-really-all-that-large criminal cartel that is using these divisions centered around a flatly incorrect definition of "racism" (among other things) as a distraction to keep the slaves infighting rather than realizing they have the power on an individual level to walk away from the plantation - or outright kill their self-appointed "masters" with ease. So, sure, keep railing against those "racist societal institutions" wrapped up inside a single piece of white human skin - you're one of the masters' good little slaves.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:23PM (#420332)

          As soon as you tried to play the irish slaves bullshit you eviscerated yourself. The indentured and penal servitude of the Irish is not even close to the hereditary chattel status of africans. That's stormfront quality tripe.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:50PM (#420357)

            [some desperate handwaving]

            Feeling pressured? Your views not seeming well-grounded at the moment? Good - maybe next you'll realize that modern slavery fueled by false accusations of "racism" is even more insidious than just openly calling it by its ugly name.

            There are plenty of oblivious people of all skin colors scurrying about, too busy to do much else other than try to keep themselves and their families from starving. Such people may be feeding the system while under its lash, but they are not your enemies. Your enemies are the orchestrators, leaders, and willing enforcers. Calling Joe Sixpack the mastermind and beneficiary of the societal system you and I both despise is just... counter-productive. At best.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:59PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @11:59PM (#420364)

              modern slavery fueled by false accusations of "racism" is even more insidious than just openly calling it by its ugly name.

              Lol. Yeah, "modern slavery." Dude, you fucking brought up that stormfront shit. And you hide behind dictionary pedantry. Who can take you seriously?

              Calling Joe Sixpack the mastermind and beneficiary of the societal system you and I both despise is just... counter-productive. At best.

              yeah, that's the point here, joe sixpack is the mastermind. No, he's just a beneficiary. He's not high up the ranks. But when the average black family has just 7% of the wealth of the average white family, systemic racism is still the dominating factor.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:35AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:35AM (#420381)

                systemic racism is still the dominating factor

                Maybe you live in Martha's Vineyard. That's the only explaination I can come up with in regards to your completely fanciful belief that a random white-skinned human benefits from the problems in the status quo you identify as "racism". I guess Joe Sixpack of your fantasy world only has one or two stripes on his pointed bedsheet's rank insignia. Venturing into that fantasy just for sake of argument: that's a pretty stupid way to fight a war, by attacking the lowest-ranking troops you can find.

                Of course, I do reject your fallacious assertions that a white-skinned individual can be a "racist societal system" and therefore be "racist" for existing while in the same breath claiming the "he white! beat his shit! [youtube.com]" thugs cannot be racist.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:57AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:57AM (#420389)

                  Dictionary pedant.
                  Stormfront fellow traveler
                  And Connoisseur of strawmen.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:41AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:41AM (#420406)

                    Since all you are left with is mere ad hominem, I take it you feel unable to successfully defend your attempt to redefine the word "racism". Excellent. Go and sin no more.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:03PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30 2016, @09:03PM (#420639)

                      I'm not 'defending' anything. That was accomplished when I posted the definition from the actual dictionary.
                      After that, all I've done is fuck with an obvious dipshit.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @02:12AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @02:12AM (#420740)

                        Your "posting the definition from the actual dictionary" attempted to make the deceptive and incorrect claim that "racism" could be used for its description of a "social system" to apply to a lone individual based upon nothing more than said individual belonging to the majority race.

                        I know you're not 'defending' such a twisting of words - it is indefensible. You did give it a try, though.