This Week in White Privilege

[Res Ipsa]

Maybe the guy was outraged by the damage the storm caused and blamed the weatherman or the reporter for somehow having something to do with causing the storm. I remember reading some time ago about outraged farmers somewhere in New England who attacked a television station because its meteorologist accurately predicted and warned about a bad storm that did severe damage to their crops and property, as if they blamed the forecaster for actually causing the storm, rather than just forecasting it.

There was no way for him to know if the reporter was reporting accurately. He drove by and saw a black man with a microphone and a camera and it triggered him to take action. The way he charged up in his face with his fist speaks volumes.

You have no idea what he knew or exactly what his beef was. Was it with the reporting in general by the media? This network? This reporter in an earlier stand up? You don't know. You're making up a story based on nothing other than your own bigotry.

[Alf'Omega]

You have no idea what he knew or exactly what his beef was. Was it with the reporting in general by the media? This network? This reporter in an earlier stand up? You don't know. You're making up a story based on nothing other than your own bigotry.

Bigotry? OK. The video showed him pulling over only after he saw a black journalist on the side of the road. The journalist had just begun his reporting so yes, we at least have some "idea" what he knew about what was being reported: nothing. He then proceeded to yell at the film crew about them being fake news. Gee, where have we heard that one before? And then once the black reporter had the audacity to speak of the man as someone needing help, he charged after him and rammed his fist towards his throat. It was a hurricane and they're on the beach. There were likely multiple film crews on the scene and yet there is no record of him attacking other film crews.

You seem to think white privilege doesn't exist so long as there are other plausible explanations, however unlikely. But I submit that this man could at the same time feel his white privilege afforded him the right to respond the way he did, even if his beef was strictly with the media at that time.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Or he just saw a reporter, and had a leeuniverse moment and gave the ‘evil mainstream media liberals’ a piece of his mind. I think you’re projecting your own narrative onto this incident. Regardless, the man embarrassed himself and owes the reporter and news station an apology.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

You have no idea what he knew or exactly what his beef was. Was it with the reporting in general by the media? This network? This reporter in an earlier stand up? You don't know. You're making up a story based on nothing other than your own bigotry.

Bigotry? OK. The video showed him pulling over only after he saw a black journalist on the side of the road. The journalist had just begun his reporting so yes, we at least have some "idea" what he knew about what was being reported: nothing. He then proceeded to yell at the film crew about them being fake news. Gee, where have we heard that one before? And then once the black reporter had the audacity to speak of the man as someone needing help, he charged after him and rammed his fist towards his throat.

You seem to think white privilege doesn't exist so long as there are other plausible explanations, however unlikely. But I submit that this man could at the same time feel his white privilege afforded him the right to respond the way he did, even if his beef was strictly with the media at that time.

You are just piling unreasonable assumption on top of assumption. You have no idea whether the reporter's race had anything to do with the encounter. You just see a white guy driving a truck, assume he's racist, and make up a story from there. So, yeah, bigotry.

You also have no idea what the white guy knew about how the hurricane had been reported. You don't even know what his specific complaints are. I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but his complaints could have been based on media reporting of the hurricane in general, and he chose to confront a reporter about it. Or he'd been watching that specific station's reporting and chose to confront a reporter from that station about it. Or he'd watched this very reporter reporting on the course of the storm. You have no idea. Your whole story is based on a snap judgment that white guy in a truck is racist cracker.

You also don't know what precipitated the man's charge at the end of the clip. There was obviously some interaction that went on with the camera person or someone else standing there that preceded the charge. What happened while the white guy was out of the camera shot? You don't know.

So, what you've done is concocted an entirely speculative story that makes claims for which you have no evidence, but are consistent with your stereotype of white guy in a truck. So, yeah. Bigotry.

But even worse, you've completely mangled the concept of white privilege. If the white guy thought he could get away with assaulting the reporter because the reporter is black, that's just run of the mill, vanilla racism. White privilege applies to disadvantages to non-white people that white people don't see based on their assumptions of what "normal" looks like. Not every outcome that happens to favor a white person or disfavor a black person represents the operation of white privilege. Misusing the concept is what helps feed the right-wing mangling of the concept.

[Alf'Omega]

Or he just saw a reporter, and had a leeuniverse moment and gave the ‘evil mainstream media liberals’ a piece of his mind. I think you’re projecting your own narrative onto this incident. Regardless, the man embarrassed himself and owes the reporter and news station an apology.

- Doc

Hey, anything's possible. I just tend not to overlook things for the sake of giving people the benefit of the doubt. Things like pick-up truck, big angry white dude, Mississippi, rant about fake news, etc. all aimed at a black guy who was minding his own business, isn't something I've conditioned myself to just overlook. I assume that my own whiteness has a way of conditioning me to ignore legit instances of white privilege.

[Res Ipsa]

Or he just saw a reporter, and had a leeuniverse moment and gave the ‘evil mainstream media liberals’ a piece of his mind. I think you’re projecting your own narrative onto this incident. Regardless, the man embarrassed himself and owes the reporter and news station an apology.

- Doc

Agreed. And, if he struck the reporter, he should be prosecuted for assault. And maybe a psychiatric evaluation is in order.

[Res Ipsa]

Or he just saw a reporter, and had a leeuniverse moment and gave the ‘evil mainstream media liberals’ a piece of his mind. I think you’re projecting your own narrative onto this incident. Regardless, the man embarrassed himself and owes the reporter and news station an apology.

- Doc

Hey, anything's possible. I just tend not to overlook things for the sake of giving people the benefit of the doubt. Things like pick-up truck, big angry white dude, Mississippi, rant about fake news, etc. all aimed at a black guy who was minding his own business, isn't something I've conditioned myself to just overlook. I assume that my own whiteness has a way of conditioning me to ignore legit instances of white privilege.

You overlooked almost everything to do the opposite of giving him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, you just described how you stereotyped the guy based on his size, his emotions, where he lives, his race and his attitude towards the media. Then you constructed your story to paint the worst possible story based solely on your self-created stereotype. That's bigotry 101.

[canpakes]

.
Maybe to Truck Guy, ‘accurate reporting’ means talking about something else, instead -

Former President Donald Trump went on a radio show Monday and complained at length that some news outlets were covering the devastating Hurricane Ida more than what he called his "great agreement" with the Taliban.

"All they talked about was the hurricane. You look at CNN and you look at MSDNC, these are horrible," Trump told the conservative radio host Todd Starnes, deploying a nickname he often uses to link MSNBC to the Democratic Party. "Unfortunately, they're way down in ratings, but all they want to talk about is the hurricane or anything else they can talk about.

"Afghanistan is not even something that can even be discussed in a rational way. The level of stupidity — and we had a great agreement."

By one estimate, a million homes along the Gulf Coast were at risk of damage or destruction from Hurricane Ida, whose eye made landfall in Louisiana on Sunday. At least one person has died, and hundreds of thousands of Louisianans were left without power.

Tens of thousands of people were evacuated, and many were still unable to return to their homes Monday even after Ida was downgraded to a tropical storm.

The former president went on to accuse the media of not reporting that he had an understanding with the Taliban and "Abdul" — most likely referring to the Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar — not to kill Americans.

"We would have hit them so hard, and they knew that, Abdul knew that," Trump said. "I would have taken the equipment out, I would have taken the people out, and then we would have bombed every base but Bagram," he said.

In a video of the exchange, Starnes could be seen attempting to get a word in, but Trump continued.

"The media, which is fake and crooked and corrupt, they're the worst people, they're the most corrupt people," Trump said. "The only thing I don't understand is why. They've got to hate our country. And they are, in fact, the enemy of the people. But the corrupt media shows the hurricane all night long."

Trump has weighed in about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan several times over the past two weeks.

https://www.businessinsider.com/Trump-c ... ssion=true

[Alf'Omega]

You are just piling unreasonable assumption on top of assumption. You have no idea whether the reporter's race had anything to do with the encounter.

This sounds exactly like the argument made by people defending cops who beat black people nearly to death. I mean, he was breaking the law right? And if he wasn't the cop thought he was. How the hell do you know what's going on in this cop's mind, am I right? You've effectively made it impossible to identify racism or white privilege as it is used in a broader, non-legal context.

You just see a white guy driving a truck, assume he's racist, and make up a story from there. So, yeah, bigotry.

I state the known facts while you're making ridiculous assertions about how we can have "no idea" what he's mad about even though he explicitly stated it. But yes, when I see a white guy charge after a black man in this manner, I will assume he's a racist every time. And I'm likely going to be right.

You also have no idea what the white guy knew about how the hurricane had been reported.

Here you are looking for an irrelevant plausibility that doesn't change anything. But feel free to point out known issues with the media's reporting on the hurricane. You're just assuming he had a legit gripe about something this reporter said, as he heard him say it 50 ft away while driving in the wind.

You don't even know what his specific complaints are.

Of course I do. His specific complaint was that the reporter was reporting inaccurately. You can assume he was referring to the media at large, but that's just an assumption that in no way changes the fact that his actions were nothing short of racist. You just cannot act that way towards black people in this day and age without it being racially motivated. How many film crews were working on the hurricane that same day? I don't see any other news outlets, with mostly white reporters, being harassed by this guy.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but his complaints could have been based on media reporting of the hurricane in general, and he chose to confront a reporter about it.

Are you an attorney? Because that would explain much. Assuming he was complaining about the media in general, I don't see how that changes the fact that he was triggered to act violently towards a black journalist. I'm not going to throw the race factor out the window.

Or he'd been watching that specific station's reporting and chose to confront a reporter from that station about it.

How many assumptions is that now? He didn't say anything about the media at large.

Or he'd watched this very reporter reporting on the course of the storm.

Assumptions are OK so long as they're creating doubt towards white privilege I see. That's just weird. But I'm open to evidence, so go ahead and produce any examples of this reporter producing anything that could in any way be considered inaccurate about the hurricane.

Your whole story is based on a snap judgment that white guy in a truck is racist cracker.

Don't be fatuous. My judgment is based on the fact that he attacked a black man despite knowing his actions were being recorded. Why would you overlook that?

You also don't know what precipitated the man's charge at the end of the clip.

You're not seriously suggesting his violent actions were warranted and in response to something the reporter did. From the video you can see the reporter kept on reporting though the man may have been interacting with the film crew during the report. At the end, the man got loud again and the black man said something to the effect that this man needed some help, and at that point he lunged at him with fist clenched.

So, what you've done is concocted an entirely speculative story that makes claims for which you have no evidence, but are consistent with your stereotype of white guy in a truck.

I've done precisely the same thing you are doing, I just come to a different conclusion. And you've listed far more assumptions than I've made. My only assumption is that his actions were racially motivated. Is that really a crazy assumption?. Your concocted defense of the guy rests on all the assumptions you've mentioned and you're leaning more towards those not because you have evidence to support them, but because they're ... possibly true?

So, yeah. Bigotry.

Coming from someone who has a difficult time agreeing to disagree without throwing out insults. Since you care so much about technical definitions, bigot is defined as "prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group." My prejudice against this person isn't based on his membership in anything, it is based on his violent actions.

But even worse, you've completely mangled the concept of white privilege.

Oh don't give me that legal definition stuff when you know very well the concept is understood more broadly in society. White privilege can simply mean a white person feels privileged because of his whiteness. Yes, this man's actions were vanilla racism, but I felt like calling it white privilege would be less triggering. Boy was I wrong. Do you really think white privilege didn't exist in 1930's Mississippi when the KKK regularly broke the laws knowing full well they'd not be held accountable for their actions due to their whiteness? I mean, it was racism, right? Yes, and it was also white privilege. It isn't an either/or. The people can be racist and also act in violent ways black people would never feel privileged to act.

[Res Ipsa]

You completely miss the point. I don't come to any conclusion at all about the extent to which race had anything to do with his encounter. I'm simply pointing out that clip presents us with a very limited set of facts and that there are multiple explanations for the white guy's behavior that don't involve race and that are equally plausible given the limited evidence we have. I'm not excusing the white guy's actions in any way. He was rude, belligerent, and looks as if he assaulted or tried to assault the reporter. No excuse. But I have no idea whether the incident was racially motivated. Neither do you. All you have are your stereotypes.

I mean, it's right here in your post: "But yes, when I see a white guy charge after a black man in this manner, I will assume he's a racist every time." That's just stereotyping. People charge each other for all sorts of reasons that don't involve race. But you just assume a racial motive based on ..... race. Yeah, bigotry.

Your link seems to be broken.

I'm not assuming anything about the legitimacy of the white guy's complaint, whatever it was. I'm talking about his motive for his actions. I didn't see evidence of any motive that would justify the white guy's actions. But legitimacy is irrelevant in trying to understand why he did what he did.

You already told us the basis of your judgment: the man's race, his choice of vehicle, his size, his emotional demeanor, his use of the term "fake news," -- all stereotypes.

I haven't overlooked the fact that the attacker was white and the attackee was black. I'm simply not bigoted enough to use that as the basis for concluding the attack was motivated by race. And the fact that he was being recorded is irrelevant to whether he was motivated by race.

One more time. I am not defending the white guy. I'm not arguing that his actions were not racially motivated. As you acknowledge, you are "assuming" the actions were racially motivated. Your assumption is based on your stereotypes about white guys from Mississippi who drive trucks. The evidence we have is that the guy was motivated about some objection he had to the way the hurricane was being reported. His anger was directed toward media reporting. Yet, you just assume based on stereotypes that this was a racial incident.

You and I both know this isn't our first rodeo. You have a pattern of not reading my actual words and criticizing me for things that I haven't said.

And you've literally told us that your prejudice is based on the white guy's membership in groups, including his race.

This was you: "But yes, when I see a white guy charge after a black man in this manner, I will assume he's a racist every time."

This was also you: "Things like pick-up truck, big angry white dude, Mississippi, rant about fake news, etc. all aimed at a black guy who was minding his own business"

"white guy" "Mississipi" "rant about fake news" "pick up truck" "black guy" are all categories. You've already told us that you didn't just base your assumption on the guy's actions. It's based on racial categories and the white guy's membership in other groups. That fits exactly the dictionary definition you quoted.

You haven't done what I'm doing. Not even close. I'm sticking to the facts and admitting when I don't have facts sufficient to draw conclusions. You're jumping to conclusions based on insufficient facts plus stereotypes, including race.

"White privilege" is not a legal definition. Privilege, as used in "white privilege" has a specific meaning. When you mangle its meaning the way you have, you take a term which, if properly explained and understood, should be fairly non-controversial. When you apply it to every situation in which a person who is white behaves badly toward a person who is black, you destroy the usefulness of the word and you reinforce the caricature of the term that the Lees and Ajaxes of the world use to deny that racism exists. You are helping the "side" that you claim to be fighting and hurting the people you claim to be "helping."

You're being just another dealer in outrage porn, as complicit in what's destroying our country as Ajax and Lee.