Random Picture Thread

My thoughts exactly!
Screenshot_20200608-230709_Facebook.jpg
 

That's might be the laziest suggestion I've ever seen from a white person about race other than, "get over it." Still, you're right in part, just not that it's a cause for racism, more so it's a cause for slow progress against forever-skeptics who want an out from their role in systemic racism. It also holds the message back in a way because the more you utter one phrase the more it begs to be countered without extra thought by what conservative commentators have already said, nullifying the fresh example before it triggers additional awareness of the ongoing systemic issues against black people. In other words it speeds up normalization of something that shouldn't be. I think this article lays out a valid journalistic mindset about the inclusion of race in a title.


"And when a journalist writes or utters the phrase “unarmed black man,” she is often honestly trying to quickly convey the key question the audience has: What was the circumstance of the confrontation?

Here’s how that logic plays out.

Journalist: A white man shot a black man.
Dubious audience member who might dismiss the story: What was the black man doing that caused the white man to shoot him?
Journalist: Well, the black man didn’t have a gun, he posed no deadly threat.
Audience: That’s important for us to know (because we have these hidden biases).
Journalist: Right, a white man shot an unarmed black man.

But it doesn’t work.

Language itself is complicated and it changes context,” said Karen Yin, a veteran editor and the creator and keeper of the Conscious Style Guide, a resource that amalgamates dozens of recommendations and best practices for language describing communities historically marginalized by communicators. “The same language that works in one setting doesn’t work in another setting.”

Without being completely aware of it, journalists are using the phrase, “unarmed black man” to indicate an episode in the wide arc of unjustified violence by white people against black people."
 
That's might be the laziest suggestion I've ever seen from a white person about race other than, "get over it." Still, you're right in part, just not that it's a cause for racism, more so it's a cause for slow progress against forever-skeptics who want an out from their role in systemic racism. It also holds the message back in a way because the more you utter one phrase the more it begs to be countered without extra thought by what conservative commentators have already said, nullifying the fresh example before it triggers additional awareness of the ongoing systemic issues against black people. In other words it speeds up normalization of something that shouldn't be. I think this article lays out a valid journalistic mindset about the inclusion of race in a title.


"And when a journalist writes or utters the phrase “unarmed black man,” she is often honestly trying to quickly convey the key question the audience has: What was the circumstance of the confrontation?

Here’s how that logic plays out.

Journalist: A white man shot a black man.
Dubious audience member who might dismiss the story: What was the black man doing that caused the white man to shoot him?
Journalist: Well, the black man didn’t have a gun, he posed no deadly threat.
Audience: That’s important for us to know (because we have these hidden biases).
Journalist: Right, a white man shot an unarmed black man.

But it doesn’t work.

Language itself is complicated and it changes context,” said Karen Yin, a veteran editor and the creator and keeper of the Conscious Style Guide, a resource that amalgamates dozens of recommendations and best practices for language describing communities historically marginalized by communicators. “The same language that works in one setting doesn’t work in another setting.”

Without being completely aware of it, journalists are using the phrase, “unarmed black man” to indicate an episode in the wide arc of unjustified violence by white people against black people."

This story didn't get quite as much publicity. A black cop shot a handcuffed black man, who was handcuffed (behind his back) and sitting in the police car.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20200609-082056_Samsung Internet.jpg
    Screenshot_20200609-082056_Samsung Internet.jpg
    83.9 KB · Views: 159
It says why in the title lmao. "CHARGED QUICKLY" Jesus christ you're a dumb motherfucker lol.

So, that's the only reason that we don't hear about a cop shooting a guy who is handcuffed in the back seat seat of his squad car? I'm thinking we didn't hear much about it because it was a black cop shooting a black guy. If it would've been a white cop who shot him, then, it would've been everywhere you fugking idiot.
 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

Slo_Ride

5,000+ posts
Regulator
Thread starter
Slo_Ride
Joined
Location
ATLANTA
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
13,602
Views
639,527
Last reply date
Last reply from
1aespinoza
IMG_1882.jpeg

slater

    Oct 4, 2025
  • 0
  • 0
Screenshot_20251004_120904_Photo Translator.jpg

1aespinoza

    Oct 4, 2025
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top