FWIW, I saw an interview with a white woman who had been on the train who also happens to be a reporter at a smallish newspaper. She said the women were obviously having a good time but that they shouldn't have been thrown off the train.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

What exactly are the "social mores" of a daytime alcohol-infused train ride?

What does alcohol infused mean?

It means full of people downing alcohol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

The problem is that:

A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and

B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group

There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.


Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.

My friend is a Presbyterian pastor. He is black, a lot of his congregation is black. Not all black folk are baptists and not all Baptists are "loud", you big dummy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Way to focus on semantics idiot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

The problem is that:

A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and

B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group

There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.


Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.

My friend is a Presbyterian pastor. He is black, a lot of his congregation is black. Not all black folk are baptists and not all Baptists are "loud", you big dummy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

np. Can I get an Amen?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

The problem is that:

A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and

B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group

There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.


Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.

My friend is a Presbyterian pastor. He is black, a lot of his congregation is black. Not all black folk are baptists and not all Baptists are "loud", you big dummy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

What exactly are the "social mores" of a daytime alcohol-infused train ride?

What does alcohol infused mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

The problem is that:

A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and

B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group

There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.


Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.

Why do you assume that the social mores of a booze cruise don't involve out-loud laughing?

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

What exactly are the "social mores" of a daytime alcohol-infused train ride?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

The problem is that:

A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and

B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group

There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.


Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.

Uh, it is worth speculating about. Why did you open the thread?

It's worth speculating about when peoples' civil rights are violated for LAUGHING.

... Says the book club....


I opened the tread, because I thought this might be an obvious case of racism. There just isn't much there.
I used to work a job where " red hat ladies" ( mostly white but all races really) would visit my job. They were super loud and obnoxious. I don't buy that they are just sweet little old ladies who got kicked off for enjoying themselves. Not for a second.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

The problem is that:

A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and

B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group

There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.


Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.

Uh, it is worth speculating about. Why did you open the thread?

It's worth speculating about when peoples' civil rights are violated for LAUGHING.

I'm sure there has to be phone video of the day in question. If this heads to court I'm sure all the video recorded by annoyed passengers will surface.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

The problem is that:

A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and

B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group

There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.


Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.

Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

The problem is that:

A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and

B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group

Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.

Did you guys hear about this? Pretty appalling story to just dump a bunch of old women off the train, away from their cars simply because they "laughed too loudly."

The Guardian also bring up the issue of "white space" and the norms associated with traditionally white spaces. This is relevant especially in the DC/MD area where we have a lot of upper income blacks who should be able to comfortably participate in traditionally white social settings without harassment.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/13/napa-wine-train-laughing-while-black