To think MN has a race problem and it’s getting worse

[MovingOutofZone2]

Posters say incredibly offensive, often outright racist things and MN lets them stand as it’s a ‘difference of opinion’ and that’s fine. Other posters complain about this and MN deletes said complaints as they are ‘personal attacks’ and that isn’t fine.

Then we have mods wandering in and going ‘let’s have peace and love’, as though ‘both sides’ need to calm down. No, we need to stop placating racists.

I’m not going to give examples as this will get taken down as a TAAT, but I cannot be the only person to be fed up with all this. MN needs to do something about the racism, race baiting and general cultural ignorance. Unless the site is ONLY meant to cater to white people and, even then, I firmly believe that most posters of any race don’t want to see all that ugliness.

It’s getting to the stage where, as a Black person, I’m steeling myself before I log on. And knowing that half the time I report a comment, I won’t even get a token acknowledgement. This isn’t right. It wasn’t always like this.

Oh! Like Boris Johnson?

It's his real name

So, yes, changing your name to be more British is fine and doesn’t make you less trustworthy? Thank you for confirming.

So, on the one hand, you’re calling her ‘less trustworthy’ because she’s sought to reclaim her roots and not ‘fit in’; but on the other hand you’re complaining that she didn’t want to discuss her heritage with some nosy random.

It’s actually extremely straightforward. She’s British and seeking to reclaim her African roots. She had no desire to discuss the latter with some random at a function, so led with the former. As is her right. If this had been accepted, that would have been that. It wasn’t, so we’re having this conversation.

You can be British and have an African name. These two things aren’t contradictory or ‘trying to demonstrate you are different’. That’s an utterly ridiculous assertion.

As I’ve asked multiple times now and you’ve repeatedly failed to address your claim that I ‘defended the indefensible’, I’m bored with you, now. I said I wasn’t going to get into back and forths with the disingenuous, so I shall stop.

I think society has a race problem, specifically that the previously marginalised voices are now detailing their experiences and holding others accountable and are getting louder and stronger and the privileged do not like it.

Keep going. Many of us are listening.

It's clear cut racism and defending it by talking about name changing is ridiculous.

The point I'm making is until we take the 'sting' out of someone being racist and stop demonising people for it and start discussing, then people can't admit to it and correct their behaviour. It threatens peoples identity and they entrench themselves.

The race problem is getting worse because people like you are posting utterly bonkers things that could be easily disproven by a quick look at actual documentation (as I stated upthread, all that nonsense about expenses is easily debunked by a look at the charity’s publicly available accounts).

Have you looked at the documentation in detail? For every year filed?

Also, charities file accounts, but they can be subject to scrutiny and investigation by the Charities Commission. This is quite normal for any charity (I'm not referring to this one in particular)

The fact that any charity has filed accounts does not mean that they are 100% clean, if that's what you are trying to argue

@unsureatthispoint

So you think:

Generally speaking, it makes the person in question seem less trustworthy in my opinion. So, yes, it tends to make me uncomfortable.

And yet if someone changes their name to something more 'British' this discomfort and lack of trustworthiness is actually transformed in your eyes to them making an effort (as you say below) so it's not a negative?

For a start, they chose a name in accordance with the place that they were living in, making an effort to integrate with the British culture, so as not to be 'othered', as you often say.

Interesting.

@unsureatthispoint, if the witness statements and the results of an immediate and detailed investigation by the RF aren't enough to convince you that a black woman was subjected to racism from a white woman, what exactly does it take?

Have you looked at the documentation in detail? For every year filed?

I haven't.

Have you?

And yet if someone changes their name to something more 'British' this discomfort and lack of trustworthiness is actually transformed in your eyes to them making an effort (as you say below) so it's not a negative?

I was referring specifically to the RF because they have a duty to fulfil, not any random person

of an immediate and detailed investigation

How long did this detailed investigation take? Do you know?

Racism is not acceptable. But it would make you question the veracity of their claims i.e. whether the incident took place or not

But surely in this case, because the claim was verified to the extent the royal family made a statement and acted swiftly and decisively, you aren't questioning the veracity of her claim i.e. whether the incident took place or not?

It was pretty quick. The RF are not exactly known for their speed in these matters.😆😆😆

But not this time. This time, they asked questions immediately and it was clear what happened. Racism.

How long would you need it to take? If multiple witnesses say they saw and heard something happen, what else would you require?

Do you generally ask how long investigations take, or only in this instance? Do you know how long they take on average? Do you have any knowledge base whatsoever from which to evaluate investigation timescales?

I’m going to guess ‘no’ and that you’re not going to answer those questions.

You can hand on heart say you've felt that way about Elton John, Michael Cane, Meg Ryan, Diane Keaton, ...? All changed their names

A charity worker is not a celebrity and would not be expected to behave like one

Do you generally ask how long investigations take, or only in this instance?

Of course I do. Why wouldn't I?

Have you looked at it at all?

Charity accounts are scrutinised BY THE CHARITY COMMISSION before they are published BY THE CHARITY COMMISSION. Every year. As you’d know if you knew anything about U.K. charities.

So, the Charity Commission thinks Sistah Space’s accounts are fine. And there is no indication that they aren’t. No breath of scandal apart from one lunatic Reddit thread. If you don’t think their accounts are fine, please tell us why and back it up with some evidence. As all the information is publicly available, this should be fairly straightforward.

Cool. Tell me how long various types of investigation generally take, what the average is for this kind and how long you would require it to take before you believed multiple witnesses.

Thank you, that makes a lot of sense, and I really appreciate you answering me without getting (outwardly at least 😁) annoyed with the question.

So, it’s fine for celebrities, fine for Royals and fine for people who want to ‘fit in’ and become more British. The list of people for whom it isn’t fine is getting shorter and shorter.

As you’d know if you knew anything about U.K. charities.

I'm not an expert in the charity sector, no.

But any organisation can be subject to an investigation after accounts have been filed. So the OP arguing that 'it must be fine because an organisation has filed accounts' is not correct. Think of Enron (again, I'm talking in general and not in relation to this charity in particular or the veracity of the Reddit claims)

So, it’s fine for celebrities, fine for Royals

Celebrities and Royals, fine.

Random people make me uncomfortable, shocking, isn't it?

A charity worker is not a celebrity and would not be expected to behave like one

You said:

Generally speaking, it makes the person in question seem less trustworthy in my opinion. So, yes, it tends to make me uncomfortable.

You said 'generally speaking', not 'when it comes to charity workers'.

I respect other people's right to different opinions to mine, obviously.

I respect people with opinions different to my own much more if they at least stand by their words even when they may be viewed as unpalatable by others.

You moved the goalposts to 'charity workers' when you previously said 'generally speaking' and were challenged on that.

@unsureatthispoint

You asked me if I had "looked at the documentation in detail? For every year filed?"

I said no. Have you?

@unsureatthispoint

Random people make me uncomfortable, shocking, isn't it?

When it's due to their name, which has no effect on you, it is pretty strange.

Have you?

No, I haven't. That's why I couldn't possibly make any claims, like the OP