No Charges Prison For Guards Who Allegedly Boiled Schizophrenic Black Man to Death

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2017, 10:43 PM)Dill Wrote: The only question I recall you addressing to me is this one: "I felt race played no part in this story and definitely didn't need to be in the headline. How about you?"  Which I answered. "I didn't "feel" anything about race until people started complaining it was mentioned." I added that I was against censoring race in such reports. And you, with no explanation, decided that was not an answer.

You provided an answer but not to the question posed.  You were asked: I felt (to have a marked opinion) race played no part in the story and definately didn't need to be in the headline. How about you? You rambled on something about you had no feeling (marked opinion) until people started complaining about it. Even though it was brought up in the second post and long before you chimed in with you feelings opinion on the thread in general. You also said something about censorship as you figured a strawman had not been introduced into the discussion. You still have not answered the question and I am not optimistic you will. 

Quote:I don't follow your angry "a" and "b" above and all the talk about "honesty" and your non-cowardice.

I was unaware that you viewed definitions as angry; especially in the context of providing a direct answer. Let's just say you are not being forthright in your responses; We'll let other decide the motivation behind them and assign their character traits to them.
 

Quote:And I did not realize Michaelsean was answering for you,  but if he was, his answer did not suffice.  Since the question at hand concerned why we speak the way we do--black man instead of  just "man"--and how should we be speaking if some don't like the way speak, to simply say "We really don't speak like that" is a non answer.

This is why I said he answered and also provided my answer as well. So now you assert the answer you received did not suffice, although it was short and concise; however you felt (thought?) your answered the direct question posed to you? They didn't just say man they used the descriptive schizophrenic; as did every other headline on the subject. It's just 99.9% of them felt (decided) his skin color was not as important to put in the title as his mental condition 

Quote:We don't say a "human being died" in a news report about a prison death because people want to know the attributes of the deceased--male or female, black, white, or other--as well as the circumstances of the death. If a child dies, we add that bit of info as well.  That is the norm at the moment.

Once again his mental condition was germane, his skin color was not. I invited folks to use any search engine they chose and see how far the hard to go to find another site that though race should be introduced in the headline. Of course we say child when a child dies. I just hope we don't say black child in the title when it is not relevant

Quote:And I question why anyone would want to change that norm by erasing race.

 
 

 Your norm has been noted and apparently color must be stressed when it has nothing to do with the subject. I will admit many are trying to make it the overall norm.

I'm pretty sure you know why to OP chose the thread that he did, but will feign ignorance. Of course I could just be over-estimating you again and you're not feigning.