Trapeze Bar London vs Haqiqi Events: the fanatic state of mind of social justice types

How the recent altercation between London’s Trapeze Bar and Haqiqi Events perfectly sums up the feeble, fragile, ideologic and fanatic state of mind of social justice types today.

London’s Trapeze Bar is in the shitstorm’s eye right now. Its General Manager Jordan Wells made the mistake to voice his dislike for a certain genre of music and the people that listen to it. He did so in a private email to a promoter — Haqiqi Events — adding that he wanted to pull out of a charity concert at his Bar organized by Haqiqi. Wells claims to have agreed to host the concert before knowing about the actual music that would be played, which he happens to detest. Seems questionable, but we’ll get to that in the end.

Back to the email Wells had sent to Haqiqi. Haqiqi Events decided to publish the email on Twitter. Along with a letter condemning Wells’ decision not to allow the event to go ahead at his club. But actually, Haqiqi really condemned Wells’ thoughts not his actions.

Different genres attract different demographics. Sure, you have overlaps, and it varies from genre to genre, but as a general observation that statement makes sense.

The so-called „progressive left“ don’t like to hear that, as it tampers with their „we are all the same“ rhetoric.

People of this mindset think equality literally means: we’re all the same. That there are no differences when it comes to taste, opinions or political views.

But „we are all the same“ is actually a way of describing that we all have the same rights. In this case, the right to say and think whatever we want to say or think.

(I don’t think it actually makes a lot of sense to say that we HAVE rights, rather than we have to DO rights, but that’s another topic. You can check out my article on the matter here)

„We are all the same“ is a (bad) way of describing that despite the myriad of differences between human beings, the overarching principles guiding morality and human coexistence have to be the same for everyone.

Live and let live.

Freedom of speech is one of the most important overarching principles, precisely because it enables us to speak up when we are NOT of the same opinion.

If Mr. Wells of Trapeze club does not like a certain genre of music and the demographic that generally comes with it then that is his prerogative.

You don’t have to like it or agree with it. That is your prerogative.

The problem comes with the public shaming. Public shaming is very effective. As a matter of fact, I believe ostracism is one of the most effective tools in a society that wants to make sure everybody is playing by the rules.

But not being allowed to say something should never become the rule.

Haqiqi could have just decided not to do business with Trapeze ever again, and that would have been totally fine.

What isn’t fine however, is to publicly shame him for something he said and have this whole thing spiral out of control. Now the situation isn’t two parties agreeing to disagree anymore. Now it’s one party trying to superimpose its own views over everyone else — encouraged by the fact that most people will rally behind the social justice party, because the social justice rhetoric appeals to emotion.

And emotions travel faster, much faster, than rational thought, which is why they usually cloud our judgement.

This strategy leads to nothing but other club owners NOT voicing their opinions in the future, even if they don’t like trap music, or worse, if they are racist. This is worse, because if someone is indeed racist, that needs to be out in the open as quickly as possible.

Wells, however, wasn’t racist. Calling it „passive racism“ doesn’t change anything. You may accuse him of being a culturalist, but people don’t distinguish between culture and race these days — thereby only exacerbating the perception that race is the dividing category and not culture.

Wells also mentioned demographics. So, in addition, he’s a demographicist.

Now, one might say he’s discriminating against a demographic, and one would be correct. Thing is, an individual can like or dislike, work and not work with whomever they please. You can agree and disagree, but you cannot pretend they committed the worst crime imaginable just because you disagree.

That’s the problem here. The wording used by Haqiqi in their letter of condemnation:

First, they address all the fellow social justice types who jumped on the bandwagon.

„We have never witnessed such unity and passion for injustice“

Most people living online have no idea what „unity“ even means. Same goes for „passion.“ These heavily meaningful things are currently just a few clicks and typed characters away.

What is more, no „injustice“ has been committed. You can agree or disagree with Wells’ opinion, but there wasn’t any injustice committed.

Haqiqi themselves write that they intend to demolish „the bad name we so frequently hear for RNB, Hip Hop and Trap nights.“ So they admit that these nights have garnered a somewhat bad reputation.

Thus, an appropriate reaction to Wells’ comments could look like this: „We understand your concerns regarding hosting a night with those genres involved, we are aware that past events have created this climate. However, you can rest assured that our event concept, the acts we put on stage as well as the audiences they draw will contribute to a loud, wild, yet peaceful celebration in honor of the victims of the tower fire.“

Just a made-up example of course.

Then the letter descends into the hell of false self-righteousness social justice types and virtue signalers always descend into, claiming that the Grenfell Tower victims are owed an apology by Wells and the Trapeze owners. This is simply a cheap shot.

„To have a manager take away charity funds to promote his own views and have no remorse“

Wells didn’t take away anything. If anything, he deprived people of the funds temporarily, because Haqiqi will have to find another club to put on the event, which won’t be a problem and is yet another reason why the company’s reaction seems so hysterical.

Wells didn’t „promote his own views“, HAQIQI DID. Wells simply wrote a PRIVATE email. Haqiqi published it along with an elaborate interpretation.

They could have just found another club and have Wells struggle to find a replacement gig for the date. No media hype, no promoting of Wells views. Problem solved.

(The claim that his views had to be brought to the public’s attention doesn’t hold, as this whole piece is intended to show that he wasn’t racist and is entitled to disliking certain generes and even people that listen to it, as bigoted as one might find that)

„The harsh lesson an event planner has learnt today is to only promote businesses that accept us“

I guess what some call a „harsh lesson“ others would simply call „life.“

„We are not changing our audience. We are not changing our location”

Nobody asked you to. You are just PRETENDING that that’s what everybody who does not agree with you demands of you. And this is what sums up the entire social justice fallacy perfectly: that dreadful victimhood mentality.

We will be in London one way or another, and we will showcase UK urban talent“

Exactly. So why all the fuss?

Cue the White Knight. Here it comes: „For all of the acts involved in this event, I personally apologize for what you have witnessed“

I’m sure all the acts involved can now stop crying and go on making music.

„No team of mine should have been subjected to this incident“

Why blow it out of proportion? Just tell your team that the club owner is being a dick and bigoted about trap music, and that you’ll find another location.

Lastly, and I feel bad that I have to add this: I’m not taking the side of Jordan Wells here. I’m simply pointing out the fallacies in Haqiqi’s argumentation. And the dangerous climate they lead to.

I don’t know Wells, I’ve never been to his club — and probably won’t ever, seeing that the modus operandi these days would be to have him fired in order to please the gaping public.

I don’t know him, I don’t like him. I mean, what did he expect when the promoter first approached him with the idea for the charity concert. How can it even be possible that he allowed an event to go ahead without knowing about the musical progam. Surely you would talk about it in those early negotiation stages? Maybe he just heard charity for Grenfell victims and thought: nice publicity. Which would obviously be despicable. But who knows?

I have no reason to like Wells. But I like the fact that human beings can say and think whatever the hell they like.

And I love the fact that other human beings are strong enough to just let words be words and move on. Instead of artificially blowing up a certain climate to make it seem the whole world was infected by it, and that we were all victims in a predatory world, where there’s somebody lurking in the corners everywhere at night to get at us — which is the entire social justice type’s philosophy.