There’s an article on smh that talks about the owner of the Manly Wharf Hotel banning all young people. Without going on too much a rant about not liking this at all [I will get to that in a minute], it’s actually pretty shocking for a smh article I found. I will pick smh 8 days a week over the Daily Telegraph – I like my news, not an opinion.
But this particular article just seems like it’s covered in contradictions:
“He said the hotel did not have a specific policy against people under the age of 25, as was reported in today’s The Manly Daily. Instead, bouncers were simply rejecting potential trouble-makers.”
The very next paragraph:
“He apologised for the fact that many well-behaved young people would have been excluded by the blanket ban but said he was within his right to keep the atmosphere of his hotel orderly.”
So we’ve just established that he’s said it’s not a blanket ban on young people, just keeping the trouble makers out. But then we completely contradict that by him apologising that some “well-behaved young people would have been excluded by the blanket ban.”
I’m quite confused.
Let’s now launch into the part where James gets incredibly frustrated at “young people” being pigeon holed. Again. Again again.
If this guy decided that anyone of Aboriginal decent wasn’t allowed in his hotel because of a few trouble makers, he would be up on racisim charges faster than smh could publish the article. So why is it seemingly fine to chuck all young people in a category and say treat us differently because of our age?
“Oh, but it’s just young people… they’re the ones causing all the problems in today’s society, so they’ve brought it on themselves.”
Ok, a sarcastic moment there – but it’s what I feel like some people want to say. And say it anywhere but to my face. I don’t want to hear your view point if it’s going to be filled with a solid dose of ignorance and stupidity.