The Annoyed Man wrote: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.
Very well said.
I think all of us, moderators and members, here at TexasCHLforum do a good job of stepping in when statements about race go from information to bigotry.
Chas.