Hotdog
Well-Known Member
What does white privilege mean?
This made me kinda sad today...
- Thread starter The Midnight
- Start date
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Man this story justs keep getting bigger and bigger. Seems like it could have a big impact on the political spectrum. Its shedding more light and giving credence into the notion that there is fake news, particularly from the left.
You can use this forum as an example of how it could effect things. People who are staunchly on the left here came around and softened their stance. They saw it for what is was mostly. But there are still a lot of people out there on the far left that are digging in further and not softening. I think that the people who are more center on these issues or undecided could be pushed right. The far left is making themselves look even crazier. The 2020 election is still a ways away, but this event could have changed the demographics a bit in the favor of Trump. People who might not have been sure about fake news, are probably pretty sure now. So its plug your nose and vote for him again I think. Im pretty sure this will happen many more times before the election. Im confident people's memories will get refreshed plenty of times. I wouldn't doubt it if Trump brings this up during his next campaign.
You can use this forum as an example of how it could effect things. People who are staunchly on the left here came around and softened their stance. They saw it for what is was mostly. But there are still a lot of people out there on the far left that are digging in further and not softening. I think that the people who are more center on these issues or undecided could be pushed right. The far left is making themselves look even crazier. The 2020 election is still a ways away, but this event could have changed the demographics a bit in the favor of Trump. People who might not have been sure about fake news, are probably pretty sure now. So its plug your nose and vote for him again I think. Im pretty sure this will happen many more times before the election. Im confident people's memories will get refreshed plenty of times. I wouldn't doubt it if Trump brings this up during his next campaign.
I think the fact that you and I, and everybody in America, knows who the Westboro Baptist Church is is interesting, considering they’re a group claiming 70 members in Topeka, Kansas, and they never actually end up protesting anywhere that they claim they will, yet seem to get a lot of media coverage any time they suggest they are going to protest at places like Leonard Nimoy’s funeral. Prior to this incident, and even still despite it, the vast majority of people you could go out and talk to have no idea who or what the Black Israelites are. I’m familiar with them because I’ve actually come across them in real life, and they are actually more prominent out among people — not on the Internet or in media, but actually out on the streets, but yet everyone knows who the WBC is.
Now, don’t get me wrong, because I don’t think Black Israelis need more coverage because they are a huge outlier, as is the Westboro Baptist Church. They’re both irrelevant, but both could be used to stoke the flames of irrational fears and to drive bias, and one is certainly much more prominent and well known than the other, despite being significantly much fewer in number (and only one congregation).
The privileges one receives by simply being white (especially in Western society). Some examples might be:
-Overrepresentation in most forms of media
-More favorable judicial outcomes
-Being the 'normal'
-Education centered around your racial background
Red
Well-Known Member
You've made a point of emphasizing Phillips approaching the boys, and portraying him as an aggressor. But is an obvious old man, beating on a drum, really threatening to a crowd that size? What was he going to do, start beating on them instead of his drum? And how appropriate is a tomahawk chop? I don't think you have to be on the fringe of any spectrum to question if the kids could have responded better. And where exactly were the chaparones at that point. The adults? Were they enjoying themselves too? Just because there was a greater context doesn't mean this old man was truly threatening to what, a hundred, two hundred teenagers. There was no mocking whatsoever involved?
"the image and the clip take on a life of their own, reproducing a conflict that viewers have already been primed to seek out by the overall political situation and their place in it."
Now, it's not just the Left that fell into a trap of sorts. You are doing the exact same thing from the Right by minimizing entirely the behavior of the boys.
By the way, the House Intelligence Committee wants to hear from Twitter about the account that tweeted the original one minute clip.
This, to me, is a very clear example that MSM is not fake news. You see it how you want, but no one hid from the truth here. Journalists followed an evolving story and corrected earlier accounts as soon as new information came to light. They did the same thing with the Buzzfeed story.
My faith in the greater journalistic community is stronger than ever.
P.S. I have no idea if "journalistic community" is even close to the correct way to say that. But whatever, I'm going to bed.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
I have no doubts this didnt change your mind at all. I wouldn't expect it to. I know where you stand on this. My point is that it probably changed some other minds. There people standing on every sqaure inch of the spectrum.
Ill explain how it would work. Picture someone barely center left. A white male. He lives an average life. Has many responsibilities. Doesnt pay much attention to the news. Somewhat annoyd by politics. Finds himself agreeing with both sides occasionally if he catches wind of a story. Isnt indoctrinated one way or the other really. He hears the term fake news often, then more and more. Recalls times he thought the news reported something he felt was off before. Then comes this story on full blast and it catches his attention. He identifies with a white male. Feels bad for the kids. It pushes him to the right a little. He starts to try and notice a bias in news stories. Starts seeing them because they do exist to some degree. He start regularly seeking confirmation bias, and he inches more and more to the right.
There is a large segment of the population that just takes the news at its word, and there is a large segment that is always skeptical. You can easily find a different perspective online and specifically Youtube if you really go looking for it. It just takes an interest. Moments like these give people a reason to take a more vested interest in whats going on because nobody likes being manipulated or lied to. Its just a matter of someone pointing it out to you. Its not easy to see if you arent looking for it. The news if very good at seeming like all their intentions are pure. I know you say you trust the news. But something tells me I just dont think you are naive enough to think that its 100% true, completely fair, or unbiased. I feel like its more a long the lines of you believe in what they are doing is right, so its ok. Whats a little lie or manipulation if it brings about social justice.
Again, I dont think this proved the media tried to get it right. They provided lazy and reckless journalism at best. But probably on purpose. They got busted because of the extra video footage. They walked it back as far as they felt like they had to to save face. Thats how I see it. If they really were interested in fairness and integrity in their reporting, they wouldnt be running with anonymous twitter acount stories, with no investigation, rush to judgment, interviewing one side, etc. I dont believe for one second that that is considered the best reporting standards. Those are rookie mistakes. Not mistakes one of the biggest and oldest news organizations would make. Thats why I dont feel like it was a mistake.
DutchJazzer
Banned
this might be unpopular! but here goesBut let's lighten the mood a bit.
that is wrong! did the guy wearing the nazi armband use violence?
it is never ok to use violence unless violence is used first. because you dont have all the context!
what if you where at a play a stage play, you are playing a nazi on stage! so you are dressed like that. you get a phone call your house is on fire your kids or mother is in hospital. you rush out from backstage. go outside 2 guys approach you and start screaming at you you put your hand up like that to try and explain and you get punched! yes yes yes i know that did not happen in this particular incident! but that guy has every tight to wear a swastika. and wave a nazu flag. unless he iniate violence you leave him the **** alone!
the moment he raises his hand i am all for exterminating him with extreme prejduce. empty a revolver on him and reload 10 more times for a total of 60 bullets!
people on the internet and in news screaming maga hats are the new hoods, the new swastikas. seriously in america you can wear a white hood you can wear a swasitka on your arm you can fly a nazi flag. because you have that right. just as nation of islam can do their racist ****. what is not allowed is iniation of violence!
please yous your brain. yes personally i might punch a guy wearing nazi **** too if he caught me on a bad day. i am not perfect. but it will be a mistake!
you ar enot judge jury and exectuioner of every single instance
you migth not have the right context. so live and let live! and when violence is used answer with violence.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
You dont have to be menacing to be an instigator. Your intentions could be to provoke.
The problem with Phillips is that he lied. In the CNN interview his exact words were " this young man PUT himself in front of me and wouldnt move" In the video you can clearly see that Sandman was standing in that one spot long before Phillips even got there. Are we even debating both what the video shows and what he said? Why did does this continually get skimmed over? What is Sandman supposed to do there? Does he have to move? Im so confused by this. What gives Phillips the right to make people move out of his way? What gives him the right to get that close to Sandman banging the drum, and then claim he is a victim?
DutchJazzer
Banned
the more information that comes out from phillips is that he is a liar scumbag and horrible person! but tyou wont know a bout all that ebcause the lame stream media only digs up dirt on their so called opponents and not on their so called allies
disclaimer: having said that nobody should send death threats, dox him, or wish violence upon him
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Because he a native elder, haven't you heard? Native elder, native elder, native elder. Fake news continues rabble rousing with a subliminal message that is supposed to somehow add meaning. It doesn't, it's a racist dog whistle.
You're describing the process by which a person gets indoctrinated into actual fake news...
It's the same for everyone in the same circumstances. The advantages it provides can be enhanced or countered by other types of privilege.
That makes Phillips wrong, but not necessarily lying. In the heat of the moment, with the rising tensions between the other two groups, it's quite possible his perception was not the same as what the video showed.
No, he doesn't have to move. Why wouldn't he move? Is the simple politeness of making way too much to ask?
The same thing that gives Sandman the right to not move. Ask yourself why you are assuming Sandman has rights here that should not be questioned, and in the same post asking from where Phillips gets his rights.
Then, ask me again about what white privilege is.
Red
Well-Known Member
No I am not delusional. I am questioning the decision making of the adults who were in charge of this school group. And yes, I do think Phillips version leaves a lot to be desired.
This piece was written by someone who has experience encountering blacks associated with the Black Israelite "movement". I just put that in quotations because I have no real idea what to call them. A religious sect? I don't know. But the things I would like to know now all boil down to why the adults supervising the school group thought it was a good idea to let the boys engage the Black Israelites.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...othing-justifies-what-covington-students-did/
I just saw the Today Show interview of Sandmann. He indicated that, in hindsight, he wished his school group had just moved along. In his statement a day or two ago, Sandmann indicated the group of 4 black demonstrators hurled racial insults at them. That's clear from the long version video, which was about an hour and a half in length(?). One guy in particular seems very agitated and seems to be doing most of the yelling at the students. Sandmann stated one student asked a chaparone if the students could drown out the Black protestors with school chants/cheers. And apparently the chaparone said yes.
So, I wonder, why would an adult in that climate decide that it was a good idea for the students to actually engage the black protestors?
Eventually, the students exit the scene. Sandmann stated on the Today interview that he wished they had just moved along to begin with. So why did the chaparones not make the decision to exit the scene in the first place? Even before Phillips showed up. And once the stare down with Phillips commenced, and you've got students yelling, laughing, a few performing the tomahawk chop, where the hell are the adult chaparones at that point?
Maybe it's just too easy for me to say, but if I'm the adult in charge of those boys, and there they all are being taunted and insulted by black protestors, my response is not going to be "sure, guys, go ahead and yell school cheers at the black protestors". In so many words, "sure, guys, let's escalate this thing". I'm pretty sure I'm going to say, "no, guys, c'mon, ignore them, let's just move along".
When I initially "softened" my interpretation of what I was seeing in the short version video, I still indicated that I did not find the boy's behavior "appropriate". I still feel that way. And I do make allowances for the fact that these are kids, juviniles. But they were supervised by adults. I would like to hear more from those adults. I want to know why they decided that it was an appropriate decision to remain on the scene and let the boys engage with a group of obviously agitated Black Israelites. And why those adults did nothing whatsoever when the encounter with Phillips unfolded.
framer
Well-Known Member
But why not ask Phillips why he lied about how the events unfolded? Why not question him and his film crew why they lied about pretty much everything in order to get a story that never happened in the way they said it did? The person who claimed that the boys were claiming "build the wall!" to the old man, later concedes that she wasn't actually there at that moment. Hell, it turns out that Phillips isn't even a war vet as he claimed. Why is the burden on the boys? Why was absolutely nothing said about the Black Israelites who were the most egregious of all of the instigators? Thing is we ALL know why it was reported that way. Its just that some here are fine with that.
You don't get to put explosive allegations on the first page, then issue a "retraction" on page 23a and claim "journalism worked!" Get it right the first time. Every single "error" always leans one way. That is exact definition of "privilege," no? I hope those boys get large settlement checks from the moron news outlets that treated them unfairly. They don't fall under the "public person" clause.
