Persuasion. Propaganda. Hitler.

Today, in my communications class, we discussed propaganda. Well, the professor lectured on propaganda and there was some illustrative examples employed. I enjoy learning about propaganda, as it is probably the most persuasive tool used in our world. I mean, everyone uses it. Politicians, celebrities, professors, parents, friends. Everyone.

So anyways. The professor was talking, and to illustrate a point, she used an anecdote about her IOC class from earlier in the day. I can't remember what tactic we were learning about when she told us this story, but that's not really that important anyway. What's important is what she said and the discussion that followed.

Here's what happened:

In her IOC class, one of the freshmen gave a speech on Hitler and how Hitler was a good person/leader. When the professor originally introduced this story, she began by saying, "A student in my IOC class..." Before she finished her entire sentence, she edited herself and restarted, saying "A female student in my IOC class..." and continued on.

Now, I know I'm very feminist-y and I nitpick the words people use and statements they make. But I just want to know how the gender of this student was pertinent to the story. I mean, the story was about a student who gave a speech praising Hitler and all the supposed good he did. Does it really matter if it was a female or male student? Would it have made it somehow more acceptable if it had been a male student? I'm confused.

However, this wasn't the only part of this discussion I was confused about. The discussion quickly turned to "reporting" this girl for her speech and her support of Hitler. Apparently, if you agree with Hitler at all, the next step is shooting up a school. A student in class announced that she didn't want "another Virginia Tech" to happen, since those two men supported Hitler and obviously that's the only criterion necessary to become a school-shooter. Seriously, what kind of backwards logic is that?

The whole discussion was just asinine. I mean, it is somewhat shocking that someone at Concordia would have those beliefs, but the rest of the discussion was ridiculous and I can't believe the thought processes of some people.

Just baffling.