Racist BLM policy causes ejection from library

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone see the paradox of all this?
The predominant cry of many whites is that blacks need to get their <bleep> together stop depending on whites - but they're the first ones fuming at the mouth when blacks try to get together on their own and organize.
Go figure.

Nope. That’s not what this is about.
No problem with them getting together to organize.
Just either (1) don’t exclude people or (2) don’t use a public building to organize.
It’s that simple.

[Anonymous]

wayan wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why a single man would want to sit in on a mom's meeting. And I don't know why a white person would want to attend a BLM meeting. Both seems needless hostile and provocative to me.

Unless, of course, the single men and white people wanted to be part of the solution. It usually takes "them", whomever "them" are to resolve the issue "us" face.

+10000

Signed,

African American who supports BLM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed, Canadian PP.

It's also hard to give concrete examples of racism where blacks are excluded because it is everywhere. It isn't that a certain place has a policy. It is that it is widespread implied minorities aren't welcome, be it due to the political nature of the event (i.e. Trump rallies), or how the people involved act. Racism against minorities is institutionalized. It isn't a one-off exclusion like this.

Oh please. Your argument was a lot more plausible 50 years ago.

But now we have a half African-American president of the United States who was fairly elected (twice) and AA citizens who've risen to all levels of government and society through hard work and the content of their character.

You will have to do better than: "well I can't think of a single example, but it's pervasive in America!" (but not Canada apparently).

Are you black? I'm guessing no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone see the paradox of all this?
The predominant cry of many whites is that blacks need to get their <bleep> together stop depending on whites - but they're the first ones fuming at the mouth when blacks try to get together on their own and organize.
Go figure.

Nope. That’s not what this is about.
No problem with them getting together to organize.
Just either (1) don’t exclude people or (2) don’t use a public building to organize.
It’s that simple.

Oh okay, well there are approximately twenty-eight Black Lives Matter chapters in the U.S. and Canada and it looks like this particular group in Nashville was an independent body unto itself because there is no official Black Lives Matter chapter in Nashville - so this whole attempt to discredit a national organization working for the validity of black life in America is over-reaching.
It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:looks like we have come full circle, can the whites now apply for affirmative action status in college applications?

Why bother? White women are the main beneficiaries of AA and with the whole legacy thing, whites are covered when it comes to college apps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone see the paradox of all this?
The predominant cry of many whites is that blacks need to get their <bleep> together stop depending on whites - but they're the first ones fuming at the mouth when blacks try to get together on their own and organize.
Go figure.

Nope. That’s not what this is about.
No problem with them getting together to organize.
Just either (1) don’t exclude people or (2) don’t use a public building to organize.
It’s that simple.

Oh okay, well there are approximately twenty-eight Black Lives Matter chapters in the U.S. and Canada and it looks like this particular group in Nashville was an independent body unto itself because there is no official Black Lives Matter chapter in Nashville - so this whole attempt to discredit a national organization working for the validity of black life in America is over-reaching.
It's that simple.

Ummm..
This discussion is not about discrediting any kind of movement.
It is about determining when a group can exclude others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone see the paradox of all this?
The predominant cry of many whites is that blacks need to get their <bleep> together stop depending on whites - but they're the first ones fuming at the mouth when blacks try to get together on their own and organize.
Go figure.

Nope. That’s not what this is about.
No problem with them getting together to organize.
Just either (1) don’t exclude people or (2) don’t use a public building to organize.
It’s that simple.

Oh okay, well there are approximately twenty-eight Black Lives Matter chapters in the U.S. and Canada and it looks like this particular group in Nashville was an independent body unto itself because there is no official Black Lives Matter chapter in Nashville - so this whole attempt to discredit a national organization working for the validity of black life in America is over-reaching.
It's that simple.

Ummm..
This discussion is not about discrediting any kind of movement.
It is about determining when a group can exclude others.

Oh that's right - I'm sorry this discussion is all about painting the lovely portrait of blacks being racist whereas whites are far from exclusionary in their groups and organizations and institutions.
Gotcha!
Yeah, in that case I'll respectfully bow out of that bs conversation y'all can argue among yourselves about that all you want.


Oh and don't forget to watch the Academy Awards this Sunday #OscarsSoWhite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone see the paradox of all this?
The predominant cry of many whites is that blacks need to get their <bleep> together stop depending on whites - but they're the first ones fuming at the mouth when blacks try to get together on their own and organize.
Go figure.

Nope. That’s not what this is about.
No problem with them getting together to organize.
Just either (1) don’t exclude people or (2) don’t use a public building to organize.
It’s that simple.

Oh okay, well there are approximately twenty-eight Black Lives Matter chapters in the U.S. and Canada and it looks like this particular group in Nashville was an independent body unto itself because there is no official Black Lives Matter chapter in Nashville - so this whole attempt to discredit a national organization working for the validity of black life in America is over-reaching.
It's that simple.

Ummm..
This discussion is not about discrediting any kind of movement.
It is about determining when a group can exclude others.

Oh that's right - I'm sorry this discussion is all about painting the lovely portrait of blacks being racist whereas whites are far from exclusionary in their groups and organizations and institutions.
Gotcha!
Yeah, in that case I'll respectfully bow out of that bs conversation y'all can argue among yourselves about that all you want.


Oh and don't forget to watch the Academy Awards this Sunday #OscarsSoWhite

You’ll go a long way in life with your victimhood attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone see the paradox of all this?
The predominant cry of many whites is that blacks need to get their <bleep> together stop depending on whites - but they're the first ones fuming at the mouth when blacks try to get together on their own and organize.
Go figure.

Nope. That’s not what this is about.
No problem with them getting together to organize.
Just either (1) don’t exclude people or (2) don’t use a public building to organize.
It’s that simple.

Oh okay, well there are approximately twenty-eight Black Lives Matter chapters in the U.S. and Canada and it looks like this particular group in Nashville was an independent body unto itself because there is no official Black Lives Matter chapter in Nashville - so this whole attempt to discredit a national organization working for the validity of black life in America is over-reaching.
It's that simple.

Ummm..
This discussion is not about discrediting any kind of movement.
It is about determining when a group can exclude others.

Oh that's right - I'm sorry this discussion is all about painting the lovely portrait of blacks being racist whereas whites are far from exclusionary in their groups and organizations and institutions.
Gotcha!
Yeah, in that case I'll respectfully bow out of that bs conversation y'all can argue among yourselves about that all you want.


Oh and don't forget to watch the Academy Awards this Sunday #OscarsSoWhite

You’ll go a long way in life with your victimhood attitude.

Best wishes to you too and my condolences on (sniff) you not being able to attend that meeting in Nashville you must feel so...victimized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone see the paradox of all this?
The predominant cry of many whites is that blacks need to get their <bleep> together stop depending on whites - but they're the first ones fuming at the mouth when blacks try to get together on their own and organize.
Go figure.

Nope. That’s not what this is about.
No problem with them getting together to organize.
Just either (1) don’t exclude people or (2) don’t use a public building to organize.
It’s that simple.

Oh okay, well there are approximately twenty-eight Black Lives Matter chapters in the U.S. and Canada and it looks like this particular group in Nashville was an independent body unto itself because there is no official Black Lives Matter chapter in Nashville - so this whole attempt to discredit a national organization working for the validity of black life in America is over-reaching.
It's that simple.

Ummm..
This discussion is not about discrediting any kind of movement.
It is about determining when a group can exclude others.

Oh that's right - I'm sorry this discussion is all about painting the lovely portrait of blacks being racist whereas whites are far from exclusionary in their groups and organizations and institutions.
Gotcha!
Yeah, in that case I'll respectfully bow out of that bs conversation y'all can argue among yourselves about that all you want.


Oh and don't forget to watch the Academy Awards this Sunday #OscarsSoWhite

No thanks. I have never been a fan of a bunch of elite people honoring themselves by presenting themselves with awards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand your question about whether local libraries and meeting spaces are aware of it. If they are, so what? BLM has the right to exclude anyone it wants.

No they cannot exclude anyone they want IF they are using taxpayer funded public spaces like library meeting rooms.

Would you be OK with the KKK using your local library for meetings?

Would I be OK with it? No. Would I accept it as their 1st Amendment right? Yes.

Their first amendment right would not allow the KKK to meet in a public library. Private place, yes.

Wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As long as they are not breaking any laws, they have every right to meet in public spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand your question about whether local libraries and meeting spaces are aware of it. If they are, so what? BLM has the right to exclude anyone it wants.

No they cannot exclude anyone they want IF they are using taxpayer funded public spaces like library meeting rooms.

Would you be OK with the KKK using your local library for meetings?

Would I be OK with it? No. Would I accept it as their 1st Amendment right? Yes.

Their first amendment right would not allow the KKK to meet in a public library. Private place, yes.

Wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As long as they are not breaking any laws, they have every right to meet in public spaces.

NP here.
To add to this..... they would not be able to exclude others from meeting in a public space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP your title is misleading. Faux news style.

The TN chapter wanted to host meeting with people of color only (including non blacks). The library alerted them that they can't discriminate in their meetings in publicly funded space.

I support what BLM stands for. Although The BLM chapter opposed this view, I actually think it's a reasonable request by the library. I also think it's perfectly fine that the BLM chapter have a meeting with only people of color. They just need to find a different space to do it. During the civil rights movement, people met in people's homes and in churches. That same model would be appropriate today.

Whites have exclusionary meetings all the time and no one cries fowl. There are plenty of whites involved in the movement, but I also know in a place like TN you are probably more likely to find a daily caller-like troll in your meeting recording and twisiting the narrative then you would an empathetic white person.

Just curious - can you give an example of a white “exclusionary” meeting?

Are you serious with that question? Really?

Yep.

The C-level suites of most Fortune 500 companies.

NP here. I also want to know.

Give examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone see the paradox of all this?
The predominant cry of many whites is that blacks need to get their <bleep> together stop depending on whites - but they're the first ones fuming at the mouth when blacks try to get together on their own and organize.
Go figure.

Nope. That’s not what this is about.
No problem with them getting together to organize.
Just either (1) don’t exclude people or (2) don’t use a public building to organize.
It’s that simple.

Oh okay, well there are approximately twenty-eight Black Lives Matter chapters in the U.S. and Canada and it looks like this particular group in Nashville was an independent body unto itself because there is no official Black Lives Matter chapter in Nashville - so this whole attempt to discredit a national organization working for the validity of black life in America is over-reaching.
It's that simple.

Ummm..
This discussion is not about discrediting any kind of movement.
It is about determining when a group can exclude others.

Oh that's right - I'm sorry this discussion is all about painting the lovely portrait of blacks being racist whereas whites are far from exclusionary in their groups and organizations and institutions.
Gotcha!
Yeah, in that case I'll respectfully bow out of that bs conversation y'all can argue among yourselves about that all you want.


Oh and don't forget to watch the Academy Awards this Sunday #OscarsSoWhite

You’ll go a long way in life with your victimhood attitude.

Best wishes to you too and my condolences on (sniff) you not being able to attend that meeting in Nashville you must feel so...victimized.

I like you.

[Anonymous]