TexasCHLforum.com

Elsie Pea wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Elsie Pea wrote:I would just be more surprised to hear that the White guy killed an entire family of another race.

Why? Serial and mass murderers in America are actually statistically and proportionally more likely to be committed by whites than blacks. That's a fact. Because of that pesky fact, I would actually find it more surprising to read of a serial or mass killing committed by a black person than a white person, because that would be contrary to statistical probability.

You may want to pay closer attention. I said "another race." But, since you are hostile and want to argue, I will concede that you're right about everything and I'm wrong.

Why? Simply because I said what I said? That wasn't directed at you. I was just explaining why I would not have interpreted things the same way as you, or am I not allowed to express that? By the way, you started in on me, not the other way around, and you think I am hostile and want to argue? I'm sorry you're offended, but this is a discussion board.

Which part exactly of this excerpt from my previous post did you think was directed at you?

The Annoyed Man wrote:So, how do I see that being applied in terms of this discussion? Well, I think it is perfectly legitimate, for instance, if a Member A posts about an "interview" he/she had, and mentions that the "interviewer" was of a different race or gender than Member A is. The reason it is acceptable information is that it helps Member A to draw a picture of exactly what was going down. Maybe there was some racial tension involved. If so, then that is relevant information. However, if Member B steps in and says "well, that's just typical of purple people," then Member B deserves to get slapped down for making a bigoted remark. So, it's not really the information that is at fault. It's what the viewer does with that information that can be a problem if it is not appropriate.

In other cases, maybe Member A really is a bigot him/herself, and that bigotry will become apparent in their opening post. But I don't think that the inclusion of racial and or gender descriptions is what makes them a bigot. Rather, it is the way in which the information is included that telegraphs Member A's real heart.

As you can see, I didn't call anybody in particular a bigot, and I honestly don't know where you got the idea that this was directed at you.

Elsie Pea wrote:I would just be more surprised to hear that the White guy killed an entire family of another race.

Why? Serial and mass murderers in America are actually statistically and proportionally more likely to be committed by whites than blacks. That's a fact. Because of that pesky fact, I would actually find it more surprising to read of a serial or mass killing committed by a black person than a white person, because that would be contrary to statistical probability.

My opinion is that too much importance is attached to the inclusion of race and gender in a perpetrator description, but that importance is being attached by those who object to the idea of including the information in the reporting.

Worrying that including the information may serve to perpetuate stereotypes is a valid concern, but that still doesn't mean that the information is not useful. What that means is that some people are bigots and will assume generalities about race and gender. However, those people are likely already bigots, and the information only serves - in their eyes - to confirm their suspicions. But that still does not mean that the information is not useful. The solution is to deal with the bigotry, not to suppress truth.

My view is that it is journalistic dishonesty not to include all the facts in reporting a story. None of us likes it when the media misreport gun "facts." Why should we like it when they hide or misreport other facts? Truth is what it is. If people have difficulty with the truth, then they need to deal with that instead of trying to suppress it.

So, how do I see that being applied in terms of this discussion? Well, I think it is perfectly legitimate, for instance, if a Member A posts about an "interview" he/she had, and mentions that the "interviewer" was of a different race or gender than Member A is. The reason it is acceptable information is that it helps Member A to draw a picture of exactly what was going down. Maybe there was some racial tension involved. If so, then that is relevant information. However, if Member B steps in and says "well, that's just typical of purple people," then Member B deserves to get slapped down for making a bigoted remark. So, it's not really the information that is at fault. It's what the viewer does with that information that can be a problem if it is not appropriate.

In other cases, maybe Member A really is a bigot him/herself, and that bigotry will become apparent in their opening post. But I don't think that the inclusion of racial and or gender descriptions is what makes them a bigot. Rather, it is the way in which the information is included that telegraphs Member A's real heart.