ND Offers White Privilege Course

[GoldenDome]

Why should white people have to organize a protest to get a large movement yet Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown did not. The only reason anyone protested either case is because the media was already fanning the flames. The media coverage in the Bryan Stow case was not nearly as big as you are making it out to be, it certainly pales in comparison to the non-stop media coverage of the Martin and Brown cases.

I'm not "skating and deflecting" I'm showing examples where white victims do not get even 0.0000001% of the coverage as "minority" victims do. I also did bring up a case where a white fan was murdered at a sporting event yet your response was "..........". I'm starting to believe you don't really want to discuss anything. You just throw up these strawman arguments, I show they are wrong or show counter examples, and then you just move the goalposts of the debate.

Your arguments are hyperbolic, "oh the media doesn't find the deaths of Mexicans newsworthy" or "everyone just assumes when a Mexican dies that they were in a gang." That's just so absurd and irrational it doesn't really warrant the serious discussion I've attempted to have with you.

Mexico’s missing students: A gruesome mass murder | The Economist
Texas mother wants justice for three children murdered in Mexico

Mexicans murdered IN Mexico get news headlines over here. Americans care about other people.

How are other examples even relevant with so many other variables take into account? Those events took place in totally different contexts and have so many other factors to take into account. With the case of Bryan Stow, the almost exact same situational factors were present. There was very little variance in situation. The environment was the same, killed/battered in a parking lot. Cause of conflict was argumentative. Aggressor was a Mexican, possible gang member. Both victims were SF Giants fans and both aggressors were Dodgers fans. Same local media. The parallels are so similar that is deserves examination. The major variable was background of victims. Other variables could be taken into account such as time of year, other occurrences that would diminish the story and what not. Maybe there was a huge story taken place at the same time. Who knows. Maybe during the Bryan Stow case there was a slow day as far as news is concerned.

What I do know is that this particular case should be examined further because there were less variables. Comparing the Brown case and the Trayvon Martin case were totally different with so many other vairable factors it is even worth considering comparison for research.

 

[Irish Steeler]

No such thing, exact opposite

 

[ickythump1225]

How are other examples even relevant with so many other variables take into account? Those events took place in totally different contexts and have so many other factors to take into account. With the case of Bryan Stow, the almost exact same situational factors were present. There was very little variance in situation. The environment was the same, killed/battered in a parking lot. Cause of conflict was argumentative. Aggressor was a Mexican, possible gang member. Both victims were SF Giants fans and both aggressors were Dodgers fans. Same local media. The parallels are so similar that is deserves examination. The major variable was background of victims. Other variables could be taken into account such as time of year, other occurrences that would diminish the story and what not. Maybe there was a huge story taken place at the same time. Who knows. Maybe during the Bryan Stow case there was a slow day as far as news is concerned.

What I do know is that this particular case should be examined further because there were less variables. Comparing the Brown case and the Trayvon Martin case were totally different with so many other vairable factors it is even worth considering comparison for research.

Are you debating yourself? Because you're answering your own questions. It's like you jumped to these wild conclusions: "RACISM...RACISM EVERYWHERE! White people don't like Mexicans and think they're all gang bangers!" To now "well there were probably several other factors at play." To honestly believe that the media in California of all places honestly doesn't care about Mexicans is insane so I'm not sure if you were just trolling for shock value and I was the sucker who got pulled into the debate or what.

 

[Rhode Irish]

No such thing, exact opposite

"Steeler" and "Alabama" and "white people are disadvantaged" .... I am a gun rack on a pickup truck with a Dale Earnhart sticker on it and a camo hat away from winning stereotype bingo.

 

[GoldenDome]

Are you debating yourself? Because you're answering your own questions. It's like you jumped to these wild conclusions: "RACISM...RACISM EVERYWHERE! White people don't like Mexicans and think they're all gang bangers!" To now "well there were probably several other factors at play." To honestly believe that the media in California of all places honestly doesn't care about Mexicans is insane so I'm not sure if you were just trolling for shock value and I was the sucker who got pulled into the debate or what.

Why was there more coverage of Bryan Stow than the guy you can't even name?

Answer the question.

Wait you won't.

 

[nsisk157]

White privilege conference. Looks fun.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DJpvFnL6dOk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OCRxkgq2CFU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0tlltSlGItY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zAG2NQ0X7qs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I can't even begin to process what I just watched. I just have no words.

 

[IrishLax]

White privilege conference. Looks fun.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DJpvFnL6dOk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OCRxkgq2CFU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0tlltSlGItY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zAG2NQ0X7qs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm incredibly disappointed by those videos. The last one really captures some serious issues with the conference. A lot of illogical, ignorant people spouting their version of an ideology that is full of cognitive dissonance and contradictions. It also really bothers me that they advocate indoctrinating young kids.

 

[nsisk157]

I'm incredibly disappointed by those videos. The last one really captures some serious issues with the conference. A lot of illogical, ignorant people spouting their version of an ideology that is full of cognitive dissonance and contradictions. It also really bothers me that they advocate indoctrinating young kids.

This is what really affected me.

Ignorance/hate begets ignorance/hate. But hey, maybe I am the ignorant one. <--italicize?

 

[Rhode Irish]

I'm incredibly disappointed by those videos. The last one really captures some serious issues with the conference. A lot of illogical, ignorant people spouting their version of an ideology that is full of cognitive dissonance and contradictions. It also really bothers me that they advocate indoctrinating young kids.

I mean...nobody would defend those videos the way they were presented, but also consider the source and the intent behind it. There is clearly a bit of hysteria and sensationalism present there, and it is obviously done by design. A lot of pretty conventional scare tactics are at play.

A good question to ask when looking at something like that is whether the people portrayed would endorse the ideas presented. For example, a lot was made about that conference being anti-capitalist. If you polled the people there, what percent do you think would denounce capitalism? 2%? 5%? You take the ten most moon-battiest minutes from any multi-day event and you could make a pretty provocative video out of it.

 

[IrishLax]

I mean...nobody would defend those videos the way they were presented, but also consider the source and the intent behind it. There is clearly a bit of hysteria and sensationalism present there, and it is obviously done by design. A lot of pretty conventional scare tactics are at play.

This is a very, very good point. Through selective editing, it's possible that the pieces aren't reflective of what's really being espoused.

A good question to ask when looking at something like that is whether the people portrayed would endorse the ideas presented. For example, a lot was made about that conference being anti-capitalist. If you polled the people there, what percent do you think would denounce capitalism? 2%? 5%? You take the ten most moon-battiest minutes from any multi-day event and you could make a pretty provocative video out of it.

Another really good point.

 

[Wild Bill]

I mean...nobody would defend those videos the way they were presented, but also consider the source and the intent behind it. There is clearly a bit of hysteria and sensationalism present there, and it is obviously done by design. A lot of pretty conventional scare tactics are at play.

Nobody would defend the videos or the speakers? I agree there is a clear bias to the video but they really didn't have to do much to "scare" the viewer aside from simply recording and replaying the speakers at this event.

A good question to ask when looking at something like that is whether the people portrayed would endorse the ideas presented. For example, a lot was made about that conference being anti-capitalist. If you polled the people there, what percent do you think would denounce capitalism? 2%? 5%? You take the ten most moon-battiest minutes from any multi-day event and you could make a pretty provocative video out of it.

The speakers or the audience?

I've been to many conferences and I've never heard anything like this and I've never been separated by race. Very strange, in my opinion.

 

[Black Irish]

I won't say White Privilege doesn't exist, but it's really hard to suss out. Let's say I get pulled over and the cop lets me off with a warning. Was it because I'm a clean cut white guy wearing a tie and driving yuppie car? Or was it because he didn't feel like going through the hassle of writing a speeding ticket and decided to just get on with his night? Lots of variables at play and very hard to quantify.

 

[ickythump1225]

Why was there more coverage of Bryan Stow than the guy you can't even name?

Answer the question.

Wait you won't.

Because the media hates Hispanics and as a white man I assume when a Mexican man dies he was in gang.

You know, all those totally logical reasons.

Who shot J.R.?

Answer the question.

Wait you won't.

What you're asking an unanswerable question. Of course I'm not going to tell you why one guy got more coverage than the other because I can't, no one can. We can jump to the worst possible conclusions like you have or we can acknowledge that unless we work for the news stations and are in the heads of the producers and execs we'll never know. The reasoning is probably complex and due to a number of factors. What I'm pretty positive is it has nothing to do with news stations hating Mexicans or not caring about their deaths.

And for what it's worth I wouldn't have been able to name Bryan Stow either until YOU brought up his name. I would have had vague recollections of some fight at a Dodgers game and that's it. But no seriously that was the story of the century.

 

[GoldenDome]

Because the media hates Hispanics and as a white man I assume when a Mexican man dies he was in gang.

You know, all those totally logical reasons.

Who shot J.R.?

Answer the question.

Wait you won't.

What you're asking an unanswerable question. Of course I'm not going to tell you why one guy got more coverage than the other because I can't, no one can. We can jump to the worst possible conclusions like you have or we can acknowledge that unless we work for the news stations and are in the heads of the producers and execs we'll never know. The reasoning is probably complex and due to a number of factors. What I'm pretty positive is it has nothing to do with news stations hating Mexicans or not caring about their deaths.

And for what it's worth I wouldn't have been able to name Bryan Stow either until YOU brought up his name. I would have had vague recollections of some fight at a Dodgers game and that's it. But no seriously that was the story of the century.

Google 'Ferguson Missouri' and hit the images tab. Not exactly portraying Blacks in a positive light. Notice the pictures, possibly particularly placed cameras to get a specific photo. They show Blacks looting, causing a ruckus, and acting violently. Where are the peaceful pictures? Not all coverage is positive.

Notice there one picture of a White lady praying on the streets. Coincidence?

 

[ickythump1225]

Google 'Ferguson Missouri' and hit the images tab. Not exactly portraying Blacks in a positive light. Notice the pictures, possibly particularly placed cameras to get a specific photo. They show Blacks looting, causing a ruckus, and acting violently. Where are the peaceful pictures? Not all coverage is positive.

Notice there one picture of a White lady praying on the streets. Coincidence?

Goalposts have moved once again I see.

First off all of those looting thugs should be shown in a negative light. People who use an incident like Ferguson to loot, riot, and commit crimes deserve no quarter and no mercy. They are scrum. The onus in this case isn't on Google to magically show them in a positive light, it is on the "protestors" to not act like a**holes and not commit crime.

Secondly, a Google image search proves exactly nothing. The overriding media narrative has been very positive towards the "protesters." Just check out the motherf**king Time Person of the Year Runner Up:
Time Person of the Year 2014 Runner-Up: Ferguson Protesters

Economic concerns lend steam to Ferguson protests | MSNBC

President Barack Obama on Monday defended his response to protests against police injustice and framed the relationship between law enforcement and communities of color as an issue that's personal for him.

Obama said stories of being unfairly stopped by police that he heard during a recent meeting with activists from Ferguson, Missouri, reminded him of his own experiences.

"My mind went back to what it was like for me when I was 17, 18, 20," Obama said during an interview with BET that aired Monday night.

Obama Discusses Ferguson Protests In Personal Terms

Oh that blasted media always portraying minorities in a negative light and the white man's government trying to hold the people down.

 

[GoldenDome]

Goalposts have moved once again I see.

First off all of those looting thugs should be shown in a negative light. People who use an incident like Ferguson to loot, riot, and commit crimes deserve no quarter and no mercy. They are scrum. The onus in this case isn't on Google to magically show them in a positive light, it is on the "protestors" to not act like a**holes and not commit crime.

Secondly, a Google image search proves exactly nothing. The overriding media narrative has been very positive towards the "protesters." Just check out the motherf**king Time Person of the Year Runner Up:
Time Person of the Year 2014 Runner-Up: Ferguson Protesters

Economic concerns lend steam to Ferguson protests | MSNBC


Obama Discusses Ferguson Protests In Personal Terms

Oh that blasted media always portraying minorities in a negative light and the white man's government trying to hold the people down.

So it is not a coincidence that the one White person in the group is shown positively? Just random I suppose.

Okay. And to say Internet is not media is absurd and irrelevant when these types of media dominate traditional media and continue to grow.

 

[ickythump1225]

So it is not a coincidence that the one White person in the group is shown positively? Just random I suppose.

Okay. And to say Internet is not media is absurd and irrelevant when these types of media dominate traditional media and continue to grow.

Google image search isn't the media! They don't report anything! To suggest the Birkenstock wearing liberals in Silicon Valley responsible for Google are secretly harboring some white power agenda is ridiculous. If you use the internet, even noted Aryan loving Google, you will find hundreds if not thousands of articles, blog posts, and messages that are pro-Ferguson protesters. The President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, and dozens of prominent policy makers, celebrities, athletes, and people in the public eye have used Ferguson to attention whor....err speak out against "white privilege" and in support of the "protesters." But no you're right, the media definitely has a white power agenda and hates minorities.

 

[GoldenDome]

Google image search isn't the media! They don't report anything! To suggest the Birkenstock wearing liberals in Silicon Valley responsible for Google are secretly harboring some white power agenda is ridiculous. If you use the internet, even noted Aryan loving Google, you will find hundreds if not thousands of articles, blog posts, and messages that are pro-Ferguson protesters. The President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, and dozens of prominent policy makers, celebrities, athletes, and people in the public eye have used Ferguson to attention whor....err speak out against "white privilege" and in support of the "protesters." But no you're right, the media definitely has a white power agenda and hates minorities.

Google images takes those pictures from media sites. Those aren't actually Googles images, rather from news reporting sites. NBC news, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc.....were where those images came from. Lol not media though...okay.

 

[ickythump1225]

Google images takes those pictures from media sites. Those aren't actually Googles images, rather from news reporting sites. NBC news, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc.....were where those images came from. Lol not media though...okay.

Oh okay so Google in conjunction with NBC news, Al Jazeera, and CNN have a collective white power agenda that they manifest only through their images that are put on Google images. Meanwhile every single one of their journalists, commentators, editors, etc. continue to put out pro-protester stories and opinions...probably just to cover up their sinister racism though amirite?

The following images are all taken from a Google image search entitled "Ferguson Protesters":

Wow look at all that racism...

Of course there are some images that show people rioting and looting...but that stuff happened so the media is going to report on it. However that image search seemed to turn up a pretty balanced image search showing both positive and negative images. It's almost as it reflects the real world in which both good and bad things happen...and not the delusional world where in which several major media companies tag teamed with an internet search engine to advance a white power agenda and alienate themselves from 90% of the world's population which is some race other than "white."

 

[phgreek]

"Steeler" and "Alabama" and "white people are disadvantaged" .... I am a gun rack on a pickup truck with a Dale Earnhart sticker on it and a camo hat away from winning stereotype bingo.

Not a NASCAR guy...I can cover the rest...did I help ya? Can we get this man a NASCAR sticker PLEASE?

 

[GoldenDome]

That's funny considering those pictures you posted have Whites in the authoritative role and positional power, the essence of 'White Privilege' in media, not racism as you keep eluding to. I don't know where anyone stated media had a racist agenda.

 

[ickythump1225]

Just go to your local Louis Vuitton store and watch the security guard follow the black people that enter the store. Even the news shows Whites in a higher level. Take the case where that SF Giants fan that got his head stomped at the Dodgers game, coverage was everywhere. The year before a Mexican man was killed at the Dodger game but only minimal local coverage. Why is that? Oh yeah, he was just a Mexican. Screw him, he probably doesn't have any family or kids to support. He is probably just a gang member.

But in the case with the Dogders incident, the scenarios were nearly the same. Both involved arguments, except one lost their life, which you would think is worse. But Bryan Stow was painted as this loving White male with a lovely family and saved people's lives as an EMT. My question is, what made Bryan Stow's situation any more significant than the other guys. You hear the name Bryan Stow and many people know his name and his scenario. On the other hand, you hear name Marc Antenocruz and you say 'who?'.

I may be missing something but there has to be an explanation for this discrepancy. The way I see it, is that a Mexican gangmember killing a Mexican in eyes of many is not newsworthy. But a Mexican killing a White dude, is newsworthy to many. Why was there so much media attention for one and not the other? Oh, and much of the media coverage ignored the fact that Bryan Stow's BAC was .176, dude was trashed and yelling obscenities during the game. I mean I feel sorry for him, but I also feel sorry for the other Giants fan who lost his life so young, a student by the way attending Mt. SAC.

That's funny considering those pictures you posted have Whites in the authoritative role and positional power, the essence of 'White Privilege' in media, not racism as you keep eluding to. I don't know where anyone stated media had a racist agenda.

You've alluded to the fact that the media has a racist agenda in several of your posts, the above ones are just two examples. In fact that's what this whole (worthless) debate between the two of us has been about, you wildly speculating (trolling?) that media has this racist agenda to portray blacks in a negative light, completely ignore Mexicans, and portray whites as angels.

Furthermore several of those photos, which you think portray whites in a positive "authoritative" light were meant to show how the "militarization" of the police force and how the police force was "overreacting" to "protesting." Out of context you may be able to read "ohh authoritative whites" from those photos but if you haven't been living under a rock for the past 6 months you know that the overriding media narrative has been "protesters"=good, demonstrating against a corrupt justice system and police=bad overly militarized a-holes who may or may not enjoy murdering black men in cold blood and then beat down innocent black protesters after the fact.

Lastly, I am pretty much done with this conversation. It's been entirely fruitless and no matter what I say you'll readjust the goalposts accordingly.

 

[GoldenDome]

You've alluded to the fact that the media has a racist agenda in several of your posts, the above ones are just two examples. In fact that's what this whole (worthless) debate between the two of us has been about, you wildly speculating (trolling?) that media has this racist agenda to portray blacks in a negative light, completely ignore Mexicans, and portray whites as angels.

Furthermore several of those photos, which you think portray whites in a positive "authoritative" light were meant to show how the "militarization" of the police force and how the police force was "overreacting" to "protesting." Out of context you may be able to read "ohh authoritative whites" from those photos but if you haven't been living under a rock for the past 6 months you know that the overriding media narrative has been "protesters"=good, demonstrating against a corrupt justice system and police=bad overly militarized a-holes who may or may not enjoy murdering black men in cold blood and then beat down innocent black protesters after the fact.

Lastly, I am pretty much done with this conversation. It's been entirely fruitless and no matter what I say you'll readjust the goalposts accordingly.

Not my fault of your faulty inferences. Stop clasping for straws. If you think White Privilege doesn't exist in media, I am sorry for you.

 

[phgreek]

OK...I found an interview of the Campus Republican rep. and Bill O'reilly. Not much to it, and its not the most solid basis to make a judgement about the class, but it does give rise, at least for me, to a couple new questions.

Notre Dame to Offer White Privilege Seminar

I've been out of college for a while...but I never recall being interviewed to determine my acceptance into a class...I experienced courses like Organic Chemistry where if you didn't get a B in Organic Chem. I, you were not allowed to take Organic Chem. II...I get curriculum and performance pre-reqs...but interviewing people for admittance to a class? For what purpose??? Because you can't tell from their names if they are white??? (see what I did there)

Also, while I understand seminars being provided and/or lead by non-faculty/non-professors...not sure giving ND credit(s) for such is a good thing.

 

[GoldenDome]

OK...I found an interview of the Campus Republican rep. and Bill O'reilly. Not much to it, and its not the most solid basis to make a judgement about the class, but it does give rise, at least for me, to a couple new questions.

Notre Dame to Offer White Privilege Seminar

I've been out of college for a while...but I never recall being interviewed to determine my acceptance into a class...I experienced courses like Organic Chemistry where if you didn't get a B in Organic Chem. I, you were not allowed to take Organic Chem. II...I get curriculum and performance pre-reqs...but interviewing people for admittance to a class? For what purpose??? Because you can't tell from their names if they are white??? (see what I did there)

Also, while I understand seminars being provided and/or lead by non-faculty/non-professors...not sure giving ND credit(s) for such is a good thing.

It is pretty common for many special classes to be interviewed for classes. I remember a special marketing class was offered and only involved 10-12 students including some MBA students where they were to develop a marketing plan for a struggling local business. It required an interview and specific majors and GPA to get in. They also wanted to find out why you wanted to take the course and what you wanted to get out of it, probably to make sure you were going to take the class seriously since it was only a once a year class, if that.

 

[phgreek]

It is pretty common for many special classes to be interviewed for classes. I remember a special marketing class was offered and only involved 10-12 students including some MBA students where they were to develop a marketing plan for a struggling local business. It required an interview and specific majors and GPA to get in. They also wanted to find out why you wanted to take the course and what you wanted to get out of it, probably to make sure you were going to take the class seriously since it was only a once a year class, if that.

I can accept the notion of scarcity...thus a need to "select". However, I assume every student at ND who expressed interest would take it seriously. I would think a really good way to address this would be to go ahead and do an anonymous application process and evaluate applicants against a predetermined set of quals. Include an essay if need be...

I don't think an interview breeds much confidence in the selection process...

and FWIW, I would think an interview in the case you cited is appropriate as it was probably done to simulate how the real world was going to work...ie you interview, you get a job, you plan, organize, deliver the technical work. The Interview in that sense is an integral part of the education you received. In this case...not so much.

 

[GoldenDome]

I can accept the notion of scarcity...thus a need to "select". However, I assume every student at ND who expressed interest would take it seriously. I would think a really good way to address this would be to go ahead and do an anonymous application process and evaluate applicants against a predetermined set of quals. Include an essay if need be...

I don't think an interview breeds much confidence in the selection process...

and FWIW, I would think an interview in the case you cited is appropriate as it was probably done to simulate how the real world was going to work...ie you interview, you get a job, you plan, organize, deliver the technical work. The Interview in that sense is an integral part of the education you received. In this case...not so much.

Yeah, I really have know idea what the intentions of the interviews are in this such case. Is this interview in-person or over the phone? Maybe they want more variety in the class, not just one perspective to generate valuable discussions from a variety of perspectives? I have no idea. Or maybe they want to selectively pick individuals to positive reviews of the class. I could see it valuable to have multiple perspectives in a class such as this as opposed to a room where their backgrounds are similar.

 

[phgreek]

Yeah, I really have know idea what the intentions of the interviews are in this such case. Is this interview in-person or over the phone? Maybe they want more variety in the class, not just one perspective to generate valuable discussions from a variety of perspectives? I have no idea. Or maybe they want to selectively pick individuals to positive reviews of the class. I could see it valuable to have multiple perspectives in a class such as this as opposed to a room where their backgrounds are similar.

Amen!

 

[wizards8507]

Or maybe they want to selectively pick individuals to positive reviews of the class.

Of course that's what they want. They don't want a kid who's going to record what's going on in the class and send the video to Fox News or talk radio.

 

[phgreek]

Of course that's what they want. They don't want a kid who's going to record what's going on in the class and send the video to Fox News or talk radio.

Hope thats not why...maybe they are concerned about protecting IP associated with teaching such a seminar...would love the hear the rationale though.