[vidarh]

None of the people you're arguing with here have been defending exclusion based on discrimination of the kind you're objecting to, so it's then unclear why you're making this argument.

The specific comment you replied to that I replied to did not argue for the kind of discrimination you're talking about here either.

I'm absolutely sure that the kind of discrimination you're talking about is also an issue with quite a few clubs, but they are two very different issues.

[kristopolous]

Sure but consequences come from systems, structures, and institutions and not from intentions.

You can tell me it's some vibe check but it's structurally set up to discriminate based on classic markers and there's been intentionally zero remediations to avoid it.

In fact, many reports of xenophobia, antisemitism and racism persist, just Google it, it's everywhere.

That's why we had to fundamentally re-form our institutions in the US in the name of inclusion and not just have better intentions.

Berghain and Tresor can to whatever the fuck they want, I don't care. But let's call a spade a spade and not pretend it magically turns to something else based on wishes and dreams.

[vidarh]

Then attack the lack of remediation, and the lack of more objective criteria, not the notion that there are criteria for participation in all kinds of communities including in most of the ones you used as examples of inclusive ones.

> That's why we had to fundamentally re-form our institutions in the US in the name of inclusion and not just have better intentions.

Are you suggesting that worked?

> But let's call a spade a spade and not pretend it magically turns to something else based on wishes and dreams.

The problem is that you appear to call a spade something else entirely, and attack a position nobody has taken. I note that you have expanded on specific issues and pointed out another club that has specific policies that can be easily conformed to elsewhere, and that was a much more productive line of argument to take.