RE: Jay-Z hosts a "blacks only" party and everyone is going ape shit.
May 30, 2014 at 11:53 am
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2014 at 12:08 pm by SteelCurtain.)
I'm in the minority. I love Jay-Z's music, but think this was dumb. I support his right to host a party and invite who he wants, but I also think he's a moron for hosting a "blacks only" party. Did he actually make it clear that it was a "blacks only" party, or did he just invite a bunch of black people to a party, and somebody called it a blacks only party?
Edit to add: This was back in 2010 (which I think matters because this would never have been brought up except it is being used as a 'response' to the Sterling thing), and this was not advertised as a "blacks only" party. Some white people were turned away by the bouncers, which is certainly not cool, and certainly could have come from Jay-Z, but it could have come from somewhere else. The article heavily links to Debbie Schlussel, an anti-Islamic, hyper-conservative blogger who is somehow defending? Sterling, or at the very least condemning the NBA for not condemning Jay-Z's history as a drug dealer from Bed-Stuy.
While I think Jay-Z's actions are not always defensible, and I don't think you fight fire with fire---as a person who has experienced racism in the south, and a person who has experienced atheist hatred and bigotry, I understand having a party where you shield yourself from that. I think there is a difference between saying "this party is for black people," and "don't bring black people to my public arena." In the same light that I wouldn't object to a church saying "no atheists allowed," or someone having a party for atheists only, this, to me, stinks of digging, reaching, and hyperbolising a story.
Edit to add: This was back in 2010 (which I think matters because this would never have been brought up except it is being used as a 'response' to the Sterling thing), and this was not advertised as a "blacks only" party. Some white people were turned away by the bouncers, which is certainly not cool, and certainly could have come from Jay-Z, but it could have come from somewhere else. The article heavily links to Debbie Schlussel, an anti-Islamic, hyper-conservative blogger who is somehow defending? Sterling, or at the very least condemning the NBA for not condemning Jay-Z's history as a drug dealer from Bed-Stuy.
While I think Jay-Z's actions are not always defensible, and I don't think you fight fire with fire---as a person who has experienced racism in the south, and a person who has experienced atheist hatred and bigotry, I understand having a party where you shield yourself from that. I think there is a difference between saying "this party is for black people," and "don't bring black people to my public arena." In the same light that I wouldn't object to a church saying "no atheists allowed," or someone having a party for atheists only, this, to me, stinks of digging, reaching, and hyperbolising a story.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
