This made me kinda sad today...

[Alfalfa]

I like Seung Min Kim, Jamie Dupree, and most of time, Jake Tapper. Kim and Dupree are super solid.

How about the more important part of the question?

Edit: About your claim of ninja edits. Just gonna leave that out there like it's nothing?

 

[Alfalfa]

Oh, media make Christians look bad! So sad! They focus so much on WBC when they're irrelevant.

Have you ever thought about how Muslims are treated in the media when one commits a crime? Instant, and comprehensive, study of every detail of said criminal's life, to determine whether it was terrorism. That's before Trump goes on TV and call him an animal and what have you.

And they say we're the ones living in a bubble.

 

[Alfalfa]

The media reflects their audience's beliefs and preferences. There is a perception that "Muslim extremists" present a danger, and thus, the media will focus on that whenever they could. Audience interest = media success. Similarly, many see a lot of racism coming from the Trumpers. The media will, of course, capitalize on that. Nobody is out to get you just to fulfill some evil agenda.

And it's not the other way around either. The media does not dictate the narrative. Nobody gives a **** about a narrative they're not already invested in. The social narrative is what dictates media's action and coverage.

 

[One Brow]

And if you read my post, I don't necessarily challenge that. What I do challenge is that out of all this situation, that's a big focus? If the altered situation played out that I suggested, would you be on here talking about the chaperone? Would you view talking about the chaperone as a distraction from the issue, and perhaps even aiding victim blaming?

If the chaperone told kids to engage in a verbal war, that is definitely on the chaperone, regardless of circumstance.

As to whether it was a distraction, that would depend on whether the poster was talking about only the chaperone, or how mistakes were made on all sides.

Yes, if you were the chaperone. But if you're the guy on JFC talking about what happened, are you concerned about the chaperone's failures, or would that be a convenient way to try to avoid acknowledging the much, much larger issue of the white nationalists' behavior? I could be way off base, but I don't think you get past the white nationalists long enough to register any beef with the chaperones.

Perhaps not. I'm just as flawed a human as anyone else.

 

[One Brow]

Quite a few, but I evaluate mainly by reporters that I trust, that have earned my trust.

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]

Perhaps a metaphor will help. Every person who is 6' tall has different circumstances. These various circumstances can enhance or counter the advantages they receive from being 6' tall. They are still all 6' tall.

Now, if you had said the level of overall privilege is different from white person to white person, I would agree with that statement.

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.

 

[One Brow]

Does person B still have an advantage on person A because he is white?

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.

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?

The line for what? Also, I'm not sure what the purpose of your 10-point scale is. What are you trying to accomplish?

 

[One Brow]

Repeating from an unanswered post on page 8:

What is Sandman supposed to do there? Does he have to move?

No, he doesn't have to move. Why wouldn't he move? Is the simple politeness of making way too much to ask?

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?

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.

 

[Gameface]

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.

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]

How about the more important part of the question?

Edit: About your claim of ninja edits. Just gonna leave that out there like it's nothing?

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]

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.

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.

 

[Eminence]

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?

Don't bother, he's being intentionally obtuse. Already went over this in the last couple of pages.