News policy is typically set by organizations, not reporters. Most likely, the reporters you trust in organizations you question are found trustworthy by you as much because of the nature of their beat as anything else.
This made me kinda sad today...
- Thread starter The Midnight
- Start date
News policy is typically set by organizations, not reporters. Most likely, the reporters you trust in organizations you question are found trustworthy by you as much because of the nature of their beat as anything else.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
K, first part. White people are white people with different circumstances. Got it. Did I miss something?
Second part, so you admit that each white person has a different level of white privilege. I would agree with that.
Juxtapose these two scenarios/people
Person A
Black Male
Grew up wealthy
Both parents in the house
No abuse
Educated
Person B
White Male
Born blind or with some sort of handicap
No dad, single mom raised him
Grew up extremely poor
Uneducated
Abused
Does person B still have an advantage on person A because he is white?
Logically and obviously the answer is no. I wouldnt expect you to say yes, but I wont be shocked. These are extreme scenarios, yes, and not the norm. However, if my scenario proves there is a crossover point where white privilege does not outweigh certain circumstances, then there is a line somwhere. There has got be a list of qualifications that determine where the line is. Where is the line, and who decides where the line is?
Certainly, life in the States has to be a lot easier for Barack Obama than person B even without the handicap, right?
So going back to my scale of white privilege. This is how I think it represents America as a whole. Tell me if Im wrong.
Scale of 1-10. 10 being the highest privilege you can have.
8-10 - very few white people ever reach this.(trust fund babies ect. Less than .05% Even fewer minorities reach this status. Can we consider Oprah here? She is crazy rich and adored. I doubt she has any limitations on life. I think minorities can achieve this
5-7 still very few white people reach this level. Less than 15% I certainly believe minorities reach this level. Your parents had money. They helped educate you. They always supplied a saftey net, etc.. You own a business or something. You have some nice perks in life. Connections help you go places, etc.
2-4 Most people reside here. Minorities are more likely to be closer to the 2 range while white people are closer to 4. Ranging from barely making it to middle class. All races can achieve this no doubt. Your life is a constant struggle. You've been afflicted in some way. No financial help. Earned everything you got.
1 and less. The worst it gets. More minorities than whites here. But whites definitely reside here too.
Last edited:
There are two ways to interpret that question, with different answers. Does person B, overall, have more advantages or an easier life? No. Does being white give person B advantages that person A does not get? Yes.
The line for what? Also, I'm not sure what the purpose of your 10-point scale is. What are you trying to accomplish?
Repeating from an unanswered post on page 8:
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.
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.
I honestly don't think Phillips was trying to get passed Sandmann. I think he walked up to him directly and stopped.
While the kid looked smug, I don't think internally he was being smug. I think he was incredibly uncomfortable and didn't have any idea how to deal with the situation. He's surrounded by his classmates, he has been singled-out by this elderly Indigenous man beating a drum in his face and he very well may have wanted to hide or be invisible at that moment. He's a kid. His own explanation (which had the benefit of a PR firm's help) makes a lot of sense to me.
Nathan Phillips has shown himself to be non-credible. What's the latin way to say it that they use in court? Anyway, if anything he said was a lie it should be assumed that everything he said is a lie. Nathan Phillips was not honest. Let's just get that point polished off because it is basically indisputable in my opinion. I won't speak to his motivations, but I won't take his unverified account as worth anything.
framer
Well-Known Member
Have you ever followed a "breaking news" article on CNN? They update the original rather than making a new article for every time a new issue comes up. It makes sense from a SEO point of view. Sometimes they will timestamp edits, sometimes they will just add new paragraphs to the story, and sometimes they will remove portions of the article that have turned out to be bad information. Sometimes they acknowledge this, other times it just goes away without comment. Ideally every edit should be acknowledged, but it doesn't always happen. I guess it is the editor's call.
In this case I don't believe that the press even knew the boy's name before CNN went to print. The quote was added later once they got in touch with him. It used to be that you held articles before that point.
CNN web is chasing their 24 hour TVTcoverage, however, which is Hella sloppy.
Alfalfa
Well-Known Member
So you say. Show me credible evidence that CNN does this. It should be easy for people to document that behavior, since this is the internet. I'd like to see instances where CNN stealth edited an article without saying anything about it. Because that's a serious breach of journalistic code of conduct.
Edit: Note that I'm talking about editing an article. Not adding content to an article about an event in progress. But changing the content, without acknowledgement.
Last edited:
Don't bother, he's being intentionally obtuse. Already went over this in the last couple of pages.
You have no context on what actually happened. You watched a 5 second clip and made a judgement.
Last edited:
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Im just talking this out and seeing where it goes. Im open to changing my mind on things. I want to be smart. I dont want to be wrong. But to get there I need to peel back the layers of the onion and see for myself. Its hard for me to just take someone's word for it. I dont see the world through your lense. You seem like a smart person, and sound educated. However, honestly I think I see holes in your logic. Or really just not using logic in a lot of instances. I might be wrong. But thats what I see.
Ill start with the back end of where Im trying to go and work it back from there.
Ultimately, I feel like saying something like white privilege is destructive to the human mind, heart, spirit, or whatever you want to call it. I dont think its good for anyone. I cant imagine how that could be helpful to any young black person or any other minority. I also think it misplaces blame on innocent white people more often than not, and I dont see how that helps anyone either. Should we all recognize that minorities have had it rough and have ben done wrong throughout the history of this country? Absolutely, and I think we have for the most part. The white privilege assertion goes far beyond that though. Also, I think it simply lacks logic.
What does the line mean? Where does white privilege not matter or give you any extra help? As we established earlier, it can grow or shrink right? Can it disappear?
Lets do another example.
White male
Really short
Bald
Ugly
Acne
Low IQ
Tattoo on forehead
Fat
Poor
Homeless
Has a disease
Jobless
No family
Is he now out of white privilege like someone would run out of gas?
The point Im trying to get at is. How does anyone know who has what amount of white privilege? Its being talked about like every single white person has it, and has a lot of it.
2nd question. Can a black man be lucky enough combined with enough success and happiness that white privilege doesnt effect him at all?
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
You gave me like 4 short sentences. I dont think that was enough. It didnt explain much. Sorry I didnt respond. One Brow goes into more depth.
I'll try to respond to one of the things you said if I remember correctly. You said something a long the lines of black people aren't represented enough in movies, right?
I dont see how that matters. If you are a much smaller portion of the population it would make sense. Being represented 50/50 wouldnt make sense. Also, how do we know that the most talented of black people have focused there talents on being actors? Should they get the job just because or because they are good at their job? Im not going to watch a movie with bad acting all in the name of social justice. I doubt you would either. I bet if I checked that favorite movies thread you wouldnt have more suggestions of black dominated movies than white ones.
How do we even know some great actor was even passed over. I dont think Hollywood would do that. Its not even in their best interest. There are also a lot more white people. So the odds of more good actors being white are just better.
America loves black actors. Denzel Washington is widely known as one of the best to ever do it. Might be the best actually. People love his movies. I love his movies. Being black didnt stop him.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Its a simple answer.
He was standing there first.
What is the main claim that Native Americans make? They were here first. Except, the current Native Americans were not here first. They were here at the same time as the rest of us who didnt not choose the bodies we live in, and the places we were born. We also did not participate in the history that got us here.
Is it too much to ask to not make people move out of your way unnecessarily? Phillips wasnt trying to get through to a place that Sandmann was blocking. In fact, he wasnt even trying to go around him. He was trying to get into the face of someone. His purpose played out the way he wanted it. So it was actually rather polite of sandman to give that to him.
The only privilege I saw was that of an Indian man who gets special treatment on the news and walking through crowds of people. He got many people to move out of his way, and then he even got to do what he wanted. He got to bang a drum in someone's face and they couldnt do anything about it. He also got tell his side of the story when others did not. He also got lie without any repercussions. Those are just observable facts. They would pass any scientific test. It sounds a lot like the white privilege you describe.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
So, take your hypothetical person. Now make him black. Did his life just get easier, or harder, or no change?
Red
Well-Known Member
As @One Brow pointed out, I failed to answer these questions from page 8. My bad, it is a bad habit I have of not always staying up to speed in threads.
No, Sandmann does not have to move. I have to imagine the most likely response or action by Sandmann by trying to put myself in his place. Not easy. If I'm standing alone somewhere and here comes a guy walking right at me as if he's going to walk right into me, I get out of his way. Common courtesy or politeness is beside the point. Common sense will do.
But this is a much different situation. Let's say Sandmann believes every one of his peers are looking at him as Phillips walks right up to him. This is a high school boy. What his classmates think of him means a great deal. He never wants to be judged in any way that would leave him on the outs with his peers. I believe this is the stress and discomfort @Bulletproof is referring to. So, what do I do? This all happens fast and I am surely confused in a "WTF, is this guy walking right up to me? What the hell is this?" sort of way. All eyes are on me. If I decide to step aside, maybe I'll be theatric about it. Pivot sideways, throw both hands and arms behind me in a universal "be my guest and pass me" motion. I might get some laughs from my peers. Laughs are good. I'm looking cool to my peers. Remember, he knows all his peer's eyes are on him. But those few seconds of confusion result in Phillips "he's right in my face with this drum! What do I do?!? I can't back down, everyone is watching this". The result is the stare down.
Personally, my reaction would likely have been different. I would be pissed. I would engage Phillips verbally. "Get out of my face, man. What the hell are you doing?!" I might physically push his drum away from me. I'm not going to lose face with my peers doing that.
But, he chose the "stand my ground" option. The opportunity to theatrically let him pass and get some laughs and not lose face came and went. In a more normal situation, no crowd of peers, no cameras, courtesy or common sense results in simply getting out of his way.
Here, all that I've described that is important to a teenage boy results in a stare down. So, I'm long winded, but I'm trying to put myself in the place of a boy who has the eyes of his peers upon him. This is what @Bulletproof is talking about, I believe. The stare down can actually be a predicted outcome. I don't blame the kid. Yeah, he could be polite, but that option came and went.
I do not believe Phillips has the right to get in anybody's face, drum or no drum. Walk around Sandmann if it's clear Sandmann is not going to move. Standing in his face drumming is ridiculous. What point is he trying to make? How does being that aggressive toward a boy diffuse anything? How polite, how considerate is that? No excuse here. He's lucky Sandmann did not react in anger and just push him back. Maybe Sandmann didn't do that because he's a frail looking old man.
Meanwhile, Phillips is getting tomahawk chops and laughter. Not very respectful of elders, but these are kids. Their moral conscience won't come to the forefront while they are part of a crowd of peers. They can get a talk about respect for elders, but, under the circumstances, Phillips put himself in that situation. What did he expect? He expected too much, judging by his post incident interviews.
Red
Well-Known Member
I regret getting "into it" with you. I let you get under my skin. If I can't have thicker skin, I have no business being on the internet. Obviously, we're on opposite sides on issues besetting our society at this time in history. But I can abstain from getting personal. It reflects poorly on me. So, I regret my replies to you. Peace, brother.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but this reads to me as if you are saying, 'Yes, we treat minorities unfairly and makes their lives harder in multiple ways, but if we actually talk about how we treat people unfairly and how we make their lives more difficult, that just makes life worse for everyone, so let's not talk about it.' From not only my understanding, but the best understanding of those who study human culture, if you don't talk about these things, they never change, and future generations will still engage in the same sort of differential treatment. I want to make the world fairer.
It does not grow nor shrink based on other forms of privilege. The terms I used were "enhance or counter". There are overall life circumstances where your privilege assists you more (or less). The interplay of privileged and disfavored statuses has common features for various groups, but in fine detail is also unique to individuals.
In some ways and some situations, their white (and male) privilege will help them even more than it would help a tall, hirsute, handsome, etc. white male.
Every white person has the same amount in the same circumstance.
If said man is in a society where the wealth is not concentrated among the white people, where not being white can still be part of being the standard, etc., sure. You know anywhere that's true?
Even if that's true, talking about this helps clarify it for me. You need a whetstone to sharpen a knife.
However, it's also true that seeing a message expressed in different ways by different people can be beneficial to understanding. As long as NPC D4617's questions are direct, seem sincere, and without mockery, they deserve a direct, sincere, serious response.
Last I saw, Phillips did not push him or try to force him to move. You assumed Sandman had rights and complained they were under attack, and then in the same post questioned whether Phillips had similar rights. Do you see how this plays into what we call white privilege?
Sandman couldn't do anything about it? Sure he could have. He chose not to.
Last I heard, Sandman got to tell his side of the story.
You mean, like going to jail for perjury? What repercussions did you have in mind?
I don't find Sandman's recount of why he was smiling any more trustworthy than Phillip's account.
Sure, as long as you leave out other details.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
I have to give you credit for being persistent with the douchbags.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
So it gets better
The day after the first incident, Nathan Phillips and his group of "protesters" tried to interrupt mass at DC national shrine.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/native-a...shrine-mass-after-covington-catholic-incident
So, no shocker really. The guy is an antagonist and disrespectful person. Also a liar.
But he gets the benefit of the doubt because he is Indian. Why is only one side calling him out on this? You know the answer.
I guess the church should move out of his way.
The day after the first incident, Nathan Phillips and his group of "protesters" tried to interrupt mass at DC national shrine.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/native-a...shrine-mass-after-covington-catholic-incident
So, no shocker really. The guy is an antagonist and disrespectful person. Also a liar.
But he gets the benefit of the doubt because he is Indian. Why is only one side calling him out on this? You know the answer.
I guess the church should move out of his way.