| Obviously it is actually illegal to do that…. on 12:04 - Feb 29 with 2620 views | Bloots |
….but they’ll get round it by saying that nobody will actually get turned away if they want to attend.
Our world is a crazy place. |  |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
|  |
| Obviously it is actually illegal to do that…. on 12:32 - Feb 29 with 2538 views | RegencyBlue |
| Obviously it is actually illegal to do that…. on 12:04 - Feb 29 by Bloots |
….but they’ll get round it by saying that nobody will actually get turned away if they want to attend.
Our world is a crazy place. |
Isn’t it actually illegal to advertise it in that way in the first place though? |  | | |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 12:39 - Feb 29 with 2508 views | CrockerITFC |
But isn't "people identifying as black" is just a quicker way of phrasing the inclusion of people who are mixed race or have some kind of black ancestry? I.e. people who would be considered black by white people.
I don't think the phrase at all means that white people with white ancestry can claim to be black, if that's what you are implying. |  | | |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 12:43 - Feb 29 with 2471 views | bluelagos |
Or that anyone really gives a toss that a play about slavery has chosen to reserve a couple of nights for the sole viewing of black people?
Snowflake central innit. |  |
| |
| You’re forgetting that this is 2024…. on 12:52 - Feb 29 with 2398 views | Bloots |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 12:39 - Feb 29 by CrockerITFC |
But isn't "people identifying as black" is just a quicker way of phrasing the inclusion of people who are mixed race or have some kind of black ancestry? I.e. people who would be considered black by white people.
I don't think the phrase at all means that white people with white ancestry can claim to be black, if that's what you are implying. |
….they mean any white person with no black heritage that identifies as a black person can attend.
What a world. | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| I wanted to go to the play… on 13:04 - Feb 29 with 2362 views | Bloots |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 12:43 - Feb 29 by bluelagos |
Or that anyone really gives a toss that a play about slavery has chosen to reserve a couple of nights for the sole viewing of black people?
Snowflake central innit. |
….on 17th Sept, it’s the only date I can make.
But now I can’t go because my skin is the wrong colour.
Seems a bit unfair to me.
Oh well.
FFS. | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:05 - Feb 29 with 2349 views | itfcjoe |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 12:39 - Feb 29 by CrockerITFC |
But isn't "people identifying as black" is just a quicker way of phrasing the inclusion of people who are mixed race or have some kind of black ancestry? I.e. people who would be considered black by white people.
I don't think the phrase at all means that white people with white ancestry can claim to be black, if that's what you are implying. |
I think there are much simpler terms if that was what they were trying to project |  |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:13 - Feb 29 with 2299 views | Herbivore |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:05 - Feb 29 by itfcjoe |
I think there are much simpler terms if that was what they were trying to project |
It's not an uncommon phrase to use to capture those who might be dual heritage or people of colour who aren't from Black Caribbean or Black African heritage. There is nothing in the article or in how they intend to market the event that suggests they mean anything other than that. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:20 - Feb 29 with 2269 views | CaptainAhab |
The only people complaining about this are the ones who would never in a million years go to see this play under any circumstances anyway. Bloots for example. |  | | |
| Yeah, I can barely read mate.... on 13:23 - Feb 29 with 2257 views | Bloots |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:20 - Feb 29 by CaptainAhab |
The only people complaining about this are the ones who would never in a million years go to see this play under any circumstances anyway. Bloots for example. |
...so the thought of sitting through a play is abhorrent to me.
I looked at a painting once too, didn't like it.
I is well uncultured.
Innit. | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:25 - Feb 29 with 2235 views | Sarge |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:20 - Feb 29 by CaptainAhab |
The only people complaining about this are the ones who would never in a million years go to see this play under any circumstances anyway. Bloots for example. |
Do you have to be directly affected to call out racism wherever it appears? Surely it’s everyone’s duty. | | | |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:27 - Feb 29 with 2229 views | bluelagos |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:20 - Feb 29 by CaptainAhab |
The only people complaining about this are the ones who would never in a million years go to see this play under any circumstances anyway. Bloots for example. |
Same sort of person who gets frothy at the mouth cos they banned golliwogs on marmalade jars.
World's gone mad innit. | |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:46 - Feb 29 with 2178 views | Herbivore |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:25 - Feb 29 by Sarge |
Do you have to be directly affected to call out racism wherever it appears? Surely it’s everyone’s duty. |
No, absolutely not, although certain posters who seem to agree with that sentiment were very vocal that feminists shouldn't be calling out Brendan Rodgers because the female journalist he condescended to wasn't offended by it. Some people need to make up their minds!
There is also a question as to whether this really constitutes racism in any meaningful sense, given that the audience is for people who identify as Black for only two showings of the play, meaning white people can go and watch it any other time they want. I don't think white people are really missing out here in any meaningful way.
People also don't seem to be able to engage with the context here. It's like if there was a play about rape or domestic abuse, they might offer a couple of women only showings because some women might not feel comfortable engaging with the content in an audience with men. The intention is to be inclusive of people who are likely to be affected by the play's content because of issues of power and victimisation. | |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 14:00 - Feb 29 with 2109 views | StNeotsBlue |
It does seem a bit daft. If you're a black guy with a white Mrs or vice versa are you supposed to tell your spouse, sorry love this one's not for you. |  | | |
| Yeah, I can barely read mate.... on 14:02 - Feb 29 with 2099 views | J2BLUE |
| Yeah, I can barely read mate.... on 13:23 - Feb 29 by Bloots |
...so the thought of sitting through a play is abhorrent to me.
I looked at a painting once too, didn't like it.
I is well uncultured.
Innit. |
That was such a waste of potatoes. |  |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 14:02 - Feb 29 with 2098 views | Herbivore |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 14:00 - Feb 29 by StNeotsBlue |
It does seem a bit daft. If you're a black guy with a white Mrs or vice versa are you supposed to tell your spouse, sorry love this one's not for you. |
No, you go and watch one of the dozens of other showings instead presumably. | |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 14:03 - Feb 29 with 2090 views | ChorleyBoy |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:20 - Feb 29 by CaptainAhab |
The only people complaining about this are the ones who would never in a million years go to see this play under any circumstances anyway. Bloots for example. |
No. The people complaining are those who see stupidity for what it is. |  | | |
| I once did a picture with Fuzzy Felt.... on 14:05 - Feb 29 with 2057 views | Bloots |
| Yeah, I can barely read mate.... on 14:02 - Feb 29 by J2BLUE |
That was such a waste of potatoes. |
...it was an interpretation of The Martyrdom of Saint Ursula by Caravaggio.
It wasn't very good though. | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 14:20 - Feb 29 with 1951 views | ChorleyBoy |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 13:46 - Feb 29 by Herbivore |
No, absolutely not, although certain posters who seem to agree with that sentiment were very vocal that feminists shouldn't be calling out Brendan Rodgers because the female journalist he condescended to wasn't offended by it. Some people need to make up their minds!
There is also a question as to whether this really constitutes racism in any meaningful sense, given that the audience is for people who identify as Black for only two showings of the play, meaning white people can go and watch it any other time they want. I don't think white people are really missing out here in any meaningful way.
People also don't seem to be able to engage with the context here. It's like if there was a play about rape or domestic abuse, they might offer a couple of women only showings because some women might not feel comfortable engaging with the content in an audience with men. The intention is to be inclusive of people who are likely to be affected by the play's content because of issues of power and victimisation. |
"The intention is to be inclusive of people who are likely to be affected by the play's content because of issues of power and victimisation."
Can you clarify that sentence, please, as it seems you're saying in order to be inclusive some people have to be excluded. | | | |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 15:05 - Feb 29 with 1862 views | Herbivore |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 14:20 - Feb 29 by ChorleyBoy |
"The intention is to be inclusive of people who are likely to be affected by the play's content because of issues of power and victimisation."
Can you clarify that sentence, please, as it seems you're saying in order to be inclusive some people have to be excluded. |
I thought it was pretty clear but perhaps not. Given the content of the play and that some people of colour might not feel comfortable watching as part of a majority white audience, reserving two showings for those individuals may make them more likely to feel comfortable to go and watch the play. That opens the play up to more people than it otherwise would. Anyone else who wants to see the play can do so during the dozens of other performances that they will be putting on, they aren't being prevented from watching the play. | |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 15:32 - Feb 29 with 1793 views | CaptainAhab |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 14:03 - Feb 29 by ChorleyBoy |
No. The people complaining are those who see stupidity for what it is. |
Herbivore puts it much better than I could, but basically no one is being excluded from going to see the play, so it's hardly worth getting in a tizz about.
I agree how at first glance it could seem stupid, but if you read the reasoning behind it it makes sense and doesn't deserve the attention grabbing headlines. | | | |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 15:33 - Feb 29 with 1793 views | DJR |
I have a free subscription to the Telegraph through a friend to keep an eye on what it is up to, and it churns out this culture war nonsense on an industrial basis.
It used to be a serious, albeit Conservative, paper, but these days it is a mouthpiece for the sort of right wing groups that support Trump, and at which Truss spoke last week. In this sense it is the written equivalent of GB News.
It obviously offers this sort of stuff as meat to its base, but that base must be an ever diminishing group because these days support for the Tories tends to fall the higher one goes up the socio-economic scale.
As it is, I find it slightly ironic that a paper with a readership many of whom are at home with male-only members clubs (such as the Garrick) should be objecting to a play which has a couple of nights with a black-only audience. And when it comes to the expressions "black-identifying", I (by supporting Black Lives Matters) might even regard myself as such a person, but what they have done to get round issues with the law is to make the tickets available by invitation through black community groups, presumably ensuring a largely black audience.
I might add that I have been invited in the past as a guest to the Atheneum and some of the livery companies and am not sure I can recall any non-white members or guests. [Post edited 29 Feb 15:35]
|  | | |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 15:38 - Feb 29 with 1744 views | ChorleyBoy |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 15:05 - Feb 29 by Herbivore |
I thought it was pretty clear but perhaps not. Given the content of the play and that some people of colour might not feel comfortable watching as part of a majority white audience, reserving two showings for those individuals may make them more likely to feel comfortable to go and watch the play. That opens the play up to more people than it otherwise would. Anyone else who wants to see the play can do so during the dozens of other performances that they will be putting on, they aren't being prevented from watching the play. |
That's clear and always has been. I was just questioning at your choice of the word "inclusive" in the sentence:
""The intention is to be inclusive of people who are likely to be affected by the play's content because of issues of power and victimisation."
and the fact that this inclusiveness is achieved by excluding others (albeit for a limited period as you point out).
Inclusion deals with whether or not people feel a sense of belonging. You're not being inclusive to a minority group if you exclude the majority from them.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first post. Do you think excluding non-blacks from the performances makes the event more inclusive to blacks only? And if so, do you think this is a good model for inclusion of minorities in society in general? | | | |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 15:48 - Feb 29 with 1696 views | Herbivore |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 15:38 - Feb 29 by ChorleyBoy |
That's clear and always has been. I was just questioning at your choice of the word "inclusive" in the sentence:
""The intention is to be inclusive of people who are likely to be affected by the play's content because of issues of power and victimisation."
and the fact that this inclusiveness is achieved by excluding others (albeit for a limited period as you point out).
Inclusion deals with whether or not people feel a sense of belonging. You're not being inclusive to a minority group if you exclude the majority from them.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first post. Do you think excluding non-blacks from the performances makes the event more inclusive to blacks only? And if so, do you think this is a good model for inclusion of minorities in society in general? |
I've explained myself twice now, including why what they are doing can be described as inclusive (it opens it up to a wider audience and encourages a minoritised group to access it). I stand by those explanations, which also cover the questions you've asked. You disagree as you are welcome to, but it seems we've reached an impasse. | |
| |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 15:54 - Feb 29 with 1662 views | ChorleyBoy |
| Not sure what is more ludicrous... on 15:32 - Feb 29 by CaptainAhab |
Herbivore puts it much better than I could, but basically no one is being excluded from going to see the play, so it's hardly worth getting in a tizz about.
I agree how at first glance it could seem stupid, but if you read the reasoning behind it it makes sense and doesn't deserve the attention grabbing headlines. |
I get what you're saying but it is a stupid approach.
In the 70's many black people felt excluded from participating in football matches in Britain, not only by fellow players but by fans too.
Perhaps they should have had blacks only matches with black only supporters too. Then they could all feel comfortable and included in the sport. Perhaps you think at first glance that seems stupid but you'd argue the reasoning behind it makes sense too.
I stand by my point that exclusion of a group is the antithesis of creating inclusive events and societies. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
