German museum in racism row over partial ban of white people : worldnews

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This is incredibly dumb, but tbh I understand their intention. In Germany you'll meet the worst kind of racists.

Once in Starbucks, a white ~~cunt~~ woman filled my coffee mug with trash while I was in the bathroom... Less extreme, but I think every Asian descendant was at least once told to go back to China. I have been mocked for my Asian eyes, etc.

Seriously, many of their grandparents were okay with locking Jews in camps, the population as a mass grabbed and shared Jews' properties, and then officially killed them in gas chambers.

[–] Nacktmull@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You sound pretty racist yourself when you generalize the whole german population like that, based on one asshole messing around with your coffee ...

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I didn't. If that's your take from this text of mine, I don't know how I could explain that to you.

[–] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You're not alone in being called a bigot here for describing bigotry. It's absolutely nuts.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So, maybe I edited my comment and they are replying to an old version which could've indeed been poor, so I don't blame them too much.

Anyway, I'm finding out that those people who complain on the web often can't read. Especially the type who thinks in black or white basis. They can't see nuance. If people do see nuance, they often wouldn't attack unless I write something really stupid.

Simply put, that type of people can't be argued with. They won't see the complexity of reality. Hence, it follows that they can't read. Maybe they are teenagers who love to write on Steam threads or something (god forbid, I love that too).

So I often tell them they are wrong, with some explanation, yet also tell them I don't intend to convince them (because they aren't ready) and maybe that they have to read my text again (which they can't).

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The museum claims the objective is not to be discriminatory

discriminatory
"treating a person or group differently from other people, because of their race, gender, sexuality, etc."

[–] Nobsi@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How are they treated differently?

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

that's... the sole subject of the article.

the museum's decision to restrict white people from entering a small section of the display

[–] Nobsi@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ok, so? They arent treated differently. They are just not allowed to access a certain space at a certain time because the business owners said so.
Can they now not get a job because they couldnt access the space at that certain time?
Thats not treatment. Thats just business.

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"They arent treated differently."

"They are just not allowed to access a certain space at a certain time"

That's called being treated differently... I really don't know what else to say.

Can they now not get a job because they couldnt access the space at that certain time?

Can a Cheetah run really fast? What relevance does that have to anything?

[–] Nobsi@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Truly, white people are the most oppressed race.
Now they can not... checks notes: Access a safe space for bipoc that is open 4 hours a week!!! Truly disgusting!!!

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

What! You support Child Slavery?!

See, I can also make up imaginary strawman arguments. You reason like a five-year-old.

[–] Nobsi@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You dont even reason. you just keep repeating the same argument you had 2 posts ago.
Its not discrimination. youre not missing out on anything. you just cannot access a safe space for bipoc. you can also not enter any womens shelters. are you now arguing that you are being discriminated against for being the wrong gender?

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

you just keep repeating the same argument

There is only one argument. Whether or not this is discrimination. You just plainly say it isn't because "they [White people] aren't being treated differently" with absolutely no justification for that claim. How can you not see that's just plainly nonsense? There wouldn't be a controversy if that was the case. This article wouldn't exist if that was the case. I suspect you are confused because you are thinking "discrimination" is something else. Maybe English is your second language or something but I did post the definition....

Everything else you bring up about women's shelters and not being able to get a job and the "WhItE PeOpLe ArE sO OpPrEsSeD!" talking point are just red herrings that have no bearing on anything I said. I'm blocking you because I'm wasting my time replying to you spelling all this out, have a nice day.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

For several months now, Saturdays at the museum have been reserved for black people and people of colour to explore a colonialism exhibition

Ohhh noo. Anyways...

[–] earthling@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Strange response to racism.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Heaven forbid that us white people feel the tiniest modicum of discomfort. I sincerely hope it'll help foster a sense of empathy for those that continue to suffer real substantive harm.

Also, I find it pretty unlikely that the people who would cry about this tiny concession are the same people who would be interested in going to this exhibit anyways.

[–] Apollo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Racism is either wrong or it isn't.

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's massively over-simplified.

Discrimination is bad. But not all discrimination is the same. Ubiquity and power dynamics play a huge role in what makes racism so damaging.

And, unfortunately, sometimes correcting for past discrimination can itself involve discrimination.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

That's massively over-simplified.

No, it's really not. Racism is either wrong, or it isn't. There's not a middle ground here. That not all incidents of racism are equally bad does not mean any incident, large or small, of racism is not bad.

And, unfortunately, sometimes correcting for past discrimination can itself involve discrimination.

There's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution, as the saying goes. That is precisely why all solutions, even imperfect ones, must be built on solid principles. Affirmative action, for example, is built on solid principles (unless one is some right-libertarian market fetishist, but fuck them), because it seeks the integration and inclusion of all races, even though it currently predominantly benefits non-majority groups. It seeks a better world, a world where people aren't treated differently based on who their parents or grandparents were. Racism based on the idea of inferiority is far worse than racism based on the idea of collective ethnic guilt - but both are still bad. Racism based on collective ethnic guilt is worse than racism based on a simple but fundamental 'othering' of a racial group - but both are still bad.

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Considering that people, incorrectly in my opinion, refer to affirmative action as racism constantly, this seems like an odd comment to square.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's because people are shitheads and I hate them.

Affirmative action is simply the implementation of the view that society should be comprised, in as many areas as possible, of demographics which reflect the demographics of society as a whole - ie that prejudices should not be allowed to dictate the construction of the institutions which rule our daily lives. It does not 'other' anyone - it welcomes them into areas previously closed off. And the principle would, in theory, defend a white minority same as a black or Asian minority. It is a way forward, a better world, a more united world, not a less united one.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I would love to go to an exhibit on colonialism and its vast crimes, and I am upset by the matter on principle. I don't know why everyone is suddenly interested in running apologia for racial segregation.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not unavailable to you. You can pick literally any other time but that four hours, like any other well adjusted adult would do.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s not unavailable to you. You can pick literally any other time but that four hours, like any other well adjusted adult would do.

You would say this, then, about a whites only 4 hours at the same museum, then, right?

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, as that would be completely ignorant of the contextual reality of the situation.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

'Context' is not a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card. Malcolm X's pre-Mecca racism, for example. was far, far less heinous than the racism of the America he lived in due to context - but that does not mean it wasn't bad. Likewise, othering a race with benevolent intent is still, at its core, othering a race of human beings.

And in any case, the point is meant to refute the idea that "you can pick literally any other time". That you can pick another time does not mean that the circumstances which force you to do so are right. Even if you still think it is correct to continue this practice, that "It's only 4 hours" is not a valid argument regarding whether the principle of the thing is moral or not.

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I kinda wish people cared as much about the actual discrimination minoritised people face that affects their ability to live their lives fully, as they do about restricting entry to a single museum exhibit one day a week.

[–] nicetriangle@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don’t care about the actual act itself of restricting white people from some museum for a day. In a bubble? Who gives a shit.

But this kinda stuff just diminishes the credibility of legitimate movements meant to actually improve equity and equality. It sways the general public into thinking that rights activism is immature and unreasonable.

It gives the AfD sort of parties of the world really easy ammo and is basically just handing them red herrings served on a silver platter.

Shit is dumb and counter productive.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

How could they think anything good would come out of doing that. All they do is give ammo to the other side.

[–] agarorn@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We also have women only days in saunas. Is that a problem for you too?

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You act like there hasn't been a push for gender-neutral spaces for years now.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

There's no good answer to the problem and the far-right uses that to always "win".

The museum creates a space for people of color to view the displays without having to worry about angry racists threatening them with violence. This makes racists angry and violent.

If you buckle and open up the space, who moves in? Why, the racists of course! The space is no longer safe and people are intimidated out of it. The racists don't want them seeing it, so now they don't get to see it.

If you don't buckle, what happens? You get 600 "the left are the real racists" comments on social media from people privileged enough to have never been pushed from any space.

Its the same formula whenever schools have LGBT spaces without homophobes or gyms and trains are "women only" to avoid being leered at and sexually assaulted.

If anyone reading is having trouble relating to these feelings, imagine watching pornography with the actors parents standing behind you -- whatever their feelings may be towards their daughters work, you'd definitely be more comfortable if they weren't there.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The museum creates a space for people of color to view the displays without having to worry about angry racists threatening them with violence. This makes racists angry and violent.

If you buckle and open up the space, who moves in? Why, the racists of course! The space is no longer safe and people are intimidated out of it. The racists don’t want them seeing it, so now they don’t get to see it.

... have you ever been to a museum before?

They're usually pretty prompt in firmly asking you to leave if you make other people uncomfortable with your behavior.

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's worth considering that it's not always about behaviour. Presence is also a factor. People are going to act and speak differently depending on who is around. This is especially true for charged topics such as discrimination and colonialism. I wouldn't be surprised if people affected by colonialism engage with the exhibit differently during the times where they're alone in the space.

A parallel experience I can relate it to is being in LGBTQ spaces. When I'm with other LGBTQ people, I express myself more openly. In mixed company, I'll keep things to myself. Because I've learned that that is what is safest. And it's not the behaviour of the specific cishet people in the company causing that discomfort, so there's no behaviour to call out. But nonetheless their presence still has an effect because of a lifetime of previous experiences.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's worth considering that it's not always about behaviour. Presence is also a factor. People are going to act and speak differently depending on who is around. This is especially true for charged topics such as discrimination and colonialism. I wouldn't be surprised if people affected by colonialism engage with the exhibit differently during the times where they're alone in the space.

You could say that about any demographic or combination of demographics though. Asians who are only amongst other Asians likely discuss the issue differently than in a group of Asian and black people. WoC likely discuss the issue very differently amongst only other women. Hell, black people from Africa likely will discuss the issue very differently amongst themselves than in a group mixed with black Germans. Should there separate 'African black people only' days? 'Women only'? 'Men only'? Separate 'Asians only' days?

The concept of a safe space is one for private clubs, not public venues. Admittedly I bring a pretty strongly American bias into this seeing as that's what anti-discrimination law in the US is based on.

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You could say that about any demographic or combination of demographics though. Asians who are only amongst other Asians likely discuss the issue differently than in a group of Asian and black people. WoC likely discuss the issue very differently amongst only other women. Hell, black people from Africa likely will discuss the issue very differently amongst themselves than in a group mixed with black Germans. Should there separate 'African black people only' days? 'Women only'? 'Men only'? Separate 'Asians only' days?

I mean... Yes and no.

We can get more specific about demographics. But it's certainly not any combination of demographics. We usually place specific importance on demographic divides that feature particular conflicts or differences in institutional power. Like the one that an exhibit on colonialism would be focusing on. Not all combinations are going to have strong effects.

But more to the point, of what relevance is this? Just because there are many different places where we could draw a line, doesn't mean a line cannot be drawn somewhere based on people's best efforts.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

We can get more specific about demographics. But it's certainly not any combination of demographics. We usually place specific importance on demographic divides that feature particular conflicts or differences in institutional power.

Do you not think there is a considerable difference in the institutional power of black Europeans in comparison to black Africans throughout the history of colonialism? What about mixed-race people? Should they be excluded due to the differences in institutional power afforded to them under colonialism? Their presence might change the conversations being held. Am I to be counted as white because I pass? Is that not simply colorism? Or are we playing blood quantum games?

But more to the point, of what relevance is this? Just because there are many different places where we could draw a line, doesn't mean a line cannot be drawn somewhere based on people's best efforts.

The point of this is that the premise that "People will discuss the issue differently or more freely in a group of only X" is not particularly compelling in and of itself as a reason to exclude individuals from a part of a public venue on racial criteria.

If the line was drawn at black Africans only, and not allowing black Europeans to participate, what would your reaction be then, do you think? If there was a day for whites only, how would you feel?

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you not think there is a considerable difference in the institutional power of black Europeans in comparison to black Africans throughout the history of colonialism? What about mixed-race people? Should they be excluded due to the differences in institutional power afforded to them under colonialism? Their presence might change the conversations being held. Am I to be counted as white because I pass? Is that not simply colorism? Or are we playing blood quantum games?

As I haven't said anything about those topics, you're tilting at windmills here.

The point of this is that the premise that "People will discuss the issue differently or more freely in a group of only X" is not particularly compelling in and of itself as a reason to exclude individuals from a part of a public venue on racial criteria.

You're free to think that. I was just mentioning that there is more than just behaviour to consider, in response to your previous comment that inappropriate behaviour will get you removed from the museum.

Ultimately, this whole thing is a nothing-burger. A single museum has set aside a 4 hour timeslot on one day a week for people of colour to enjoy a single exhibit about colonialism.

There seems to be reasons for choosing to do so, even if one disagrees with them. And it's not some significant public exclusion that would degrade one's quality of life.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

As I haven't said anything about those topics, you're tilting at windmills here.

That you've said nothing about those topics doesn't mean they're irrelevant. They operate on the same principles you're basing your argument for the legitimacy of this practice on. If you're reluctant to address how the principle applies as a point of comparison for why it might be unjust, maybe you should re-examine the principle. If you're concerned that doing so might make you uncomfortable, then you should definitely re-examine the principle.

I ask the question again - as a mixed-race person, am I to be included or excluded according to the principle you're basing your argument on?

Ultimately, this whole thing is a nothing-burger. A single museum has set aside a 4 hour timeslot on one day a week for people of colour to enjoy a single exhibit about colonialism.

There seems to be reasons for choosing to do so, even if one disagrees with them. And it's not some significant public exclusion that would degrade one's quality of life.

So you would regard this argument as likewise applicable to whites-only events, right?

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That you've said nothing about those topics doesn't mean they're irrelevant. They operate on the same principles you're basing your argument for the legitimacy of this practice on. If you're reluctant to address how the principle applies as a point of comparison for why it might be unjust, maybe you should re-examine the principle. If you're concerned that doing so might make you uncomfortable, then you should definitely re-examine the principle.

You are mistaken. It's not that I'm not considering those topics. It's that I'm refusing to allow you to lead me around by the nose and make me chase after whatever point you want me to address, derailing the original conversation.

So you would regard this argument as likewise applicable to whites-only events, right?

As that's an entirely different situation, with an entirely different context, seems pretty easy to say I'd feel differently about it.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You are mistaken. It's not that I'm not considering those topics. It's that I'm refusing to allow you to lead me around by the nose and make me chase after whatever point you want me to address, derailing the original conversation.

Ah, so you aren't addressing the point because it makes you uncomfortable and you realize your point is not on firm ground, considering that the original conversation is about racial exclusion and why it isn't acceptable. How predictable.

As that's an entirely different situation, with an entirely different context, seems pretty easy to say I'd feel differently about it.

No, it's really not. All the arguments you put forth to justify this incident of racial exclusion are equally applicable to specific scenarios regarding white people and having conversations on issues that effect them. Sorry that you think racism is okay. I happen to think that racism is bad in all fucking scenarios.

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ah, so you aren't addressing the point because it makes you uncomfortable, considering that the original conversation is about racial exclusion and why it isn't acceptable. How predictable.

Are you incapable of reading?

Or are you just so eager to throw out accusations than you just can't help yourself?

Predictable.

No, it's really not. All the arguments you put forth to justify this incident of racial exclusion are equally applicable to specific scenarios regarding white people and having conversations on issues that effect them. Sorry that you think racism is okay.

And I'm sorry that you have a child's understanding of racism.

Racism isn't terrible simply because of discrimination. Discrimination based on race is bad, but that isn't what makes racism so damaging. Racism is harmful because it is systemic, widespread, and has actual power behind the discrimination. Because those with systemic power deny those without access to what they need to live a fulfilling life.

A minority group, lacking in systemic power, reserving a small amount of space for themselves is not the same as the majority group leveraging their systemic power to exclude the minority from society.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Are you incapable of reading?

Or are you just so eager to throw out accusations than you just can't help yourself?

Oh, so the original conversation isn't about racial exclusion and why it isn't acceptable? Is that what you're saying? Or are you deflecting because you know you can't actually defend any of your points.

Discrimination based on race is bad,

I'm sorry, could you say this one louder? Because I'm pretty sure it's core to the issue here.

A minority group, lacking in systemic power, reserving a small amount of space for themselves is not the same as the majority group leveraging their systemic power to exclude the minority from society.

When the fuck did I say they were equally bad?

It's dogshit people like you who make being mixed race in modern society still so fucking frustrating. Thanks.

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Absolutely wild that you are trying to accuse me of putting words in your mouth when you are constantly making up arguments for me and saying "is that what you are saying?"

When the fuck did I say they were equally bad?

You claimed they're equally applicable right here, dickhead:

No, it's really not. All the arguments you put forth to justify this incident of racial exclusion are equally applicable to specific scenarios regarding white people and having conversations on issues that effect them. Sorry that you think racism is okay. I happen to think that racism is bad in all fucking scenarios.

If you don't think they're equally bad, great!

But then you know that throwing up that trash and accusing me of thinking racism is okay is nonsense.

So you're just another bad-faith waste of time.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You claimed they're equally applicable right here, dickhead:

'Equally applicable' is not 'equally bad'. Jesus Christ, I can't believe I have to explain this to another human being. It is equally applicable to argue that a principle regarding the sanctity of human life renders the murder of one person and the murder of a million bad - they spring from the same principle. But they're not 'equally bad', the principle is 'equally applicable' ie they are both bad, not that they are both equally bad.

For fuck's sake.

If someone was racist against white people AND East Asians, and decided, on those principles, to beat me to a pulp in a back alley and call me racial slurs, that would be bad, because unprovoked violence and racism are both bad. That doesn't make it equally bad as the fucking totality of 19th century colonialism, even though 19th century colonialism is bad based on those principles. as well

[–] darq@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

'Equally applicable' is not 'equally bad'. Jesus Christ, I can't believe I have to explain this to another human being.

Oh sod right off.

If you know they're not equally bad, then you understand they're different because of context.

So you asking me:

So you would regard this argument as likewise applicable to whites-only events, right?

Is not only an obvious "gotcha" but you know it's an obvious "gotcha".

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oh sod right off.

If you know they're not equally bad, then you understand they're different because of context.

'Different' does not mean 'not bad'. "This is bad" does not mean "This is as bad as all other crimes of this principle", it means "this is bad".

Is not only an obvious "gotcha" but you know it's an obvious "gotcha".

In what fucking way is asking you to acknowledge that racial exclusion is, at its core, bad, a 'gotcha'?

World News