Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Random Picture Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lasherž" data-source="post: 8708089" data-attributes="member: 679555"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/unarmed-black-man-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/[/URL]</p><p></p><p>"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?</p><p></p><p>Here’s how that logic plays out.</p><p></p><p>Journalist: A white man shot a black man.</p><p>Dubious audience member who might dismiss the story: What was the black man doing that caused the white man to shoot him?</p><p>Journalist: Well, the black man didn’t have a gun, he posed no deadly threat.</p><p>Audience: That’s important for us to know (because we have these hidden biases).</p><p>Journalist: Right, a white man shot an unarmed black man.</p><p></p><p>But it doesn’t work.</p><p></p><p>Language itself is complicated and it changes context,” said Karen Yin, a veteran editor and the creator and keeper of the <a href="https://consciousstyleguide.com/" target="_blank">Conscious Style Guide,</a> 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.”</p><p></p><p>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."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lasherž, post: 8708089, member: 679555"] 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. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/unarmed-black-man-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/[/URL] "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 [URL='https://consciousstyleguide.com/']Conscious Style Guide,[/URL] 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." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Random Picture Thread
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
