Political correctness can be a motive OR it can be a proscribed behavior that folks may adopt to avoid a hassle or to follow regulation. I think it is quite possible for an individual to act in a way that is considered to be politically correct simply because it is easier.

Exactly. You used the word “think” for the purpose of expressing that I was wrong when I stated that I “know” a particular thing, when in fact, I never stated that I “know” this particular thing , but rather stated that I “think” this particular thing. This is akin to me saying that I “believe” something which is speculation and not a statement of fact as you implied it to be. La Shawn has repeatedly expressed that there is nothing wrong with speculation.

I never stated that the folks that folks behaved in a certain way for “PC reasons.” In fact, I merely described another example of PC behavior. I have no clue what motivates folks to do what they do and assume that it is a mixture of many things including departmental regulations. It is vastly different to note a behavioral pattern and impute motives to that same behavior.

Political Correctness is a motive and not an action. Saying that something is PC is assigning a motive to that action.

Shade, you originally stated: “I think that most cases of people complaining about this involve people who really want to ‘keep score’” Are you now making the very precious distinction between “you think you think something” and “you think you know” something?????? I merely stated that I find it curious when folks “think they know” what the motives of folks are….It is so utterly obvious to me that you do not “know” which is why I wrote the words “think they know.”

So, yes…I do the the difference between think and know and would have thought that my words rendered that obvious.

Shade said: “One has to wonder why anyone would feel that they know that most of the folks in the media reporting crime a particular way simply do so for PC reasons.”

I never stated that the folks that folks behaved in a certain way for “PC reasons.” In fact, I merely described another example of PC behavior. I have no clue what motivates folks to do what they do and assume that it is a mixture of many things including departmental regulations. It is vastly different to note a behavioral pattern and impute motives to that same behavior.

Perhaps if you argued with what folks actually say, rather than arguing with your reconstruction of what folks actually say, you would have more success. Then, perhaps words such as “hypocrisy” will be unnecessary in your discourse.

Now to address the straw man argument just made, I never said that the race of a suspect was not an important part of the description. It is a very important part of the description. The point is that race by itself is not a real description. It is quite telling that RedBeard included “short” “fat” and “bald” to the description of the white guys. Seems that subconsciously he knows that “white guys” alone is no real description.

The notion that not disclosing race is a detriment to catching the suspect is a front. The bottom line is some folks with pro-white agendas want the race of suspects routinely announced in anticipation of the vast majority being black or Hispanic. Thus, it is a case of “racial score keeping”. In essence, stating the race without the other details does lean toward announcing race just for the sake of doing so.

Speaking of “straw man,” I don’t know anyone who thinks or has said on this blog that reporting race but excluding other physical attributes is appropriate. Since race is part of the physical description, it would be mentioned along with a criminal’s height, weight, hair, etc. The original focus of the discussion is the Washington Post’s curious omission of the race of thugs still on the loose and my contention that PC came into play at the expense of accurately reporting a crime. No matter color these creeps are, if they are still on the loose, their race should be mentioned, along with other physical attributes, so other storeowners could be on the lookout. Shade, you were doing so well commenting all these months. Whether or not I agreed with you, your points were reasonable enough. But with this “pro-white agenda” talk, you’re taking the easy way out, reminding me of all the other black dissenters who’ve come before you. But in the end I guess it doesn’t matter. Such is life. – Admin

I’ve been doing this for almost three years, and believe me, I’ve heard and seen it all from the naysayers.

However, reporting that two black males just robbed a candy store is neither silly nor irrelevant, just as it would not be silly nor irrelevant to report that two short, fat, bald white guys wearing football jerseys had just robbed the doughnut shop at the mall.

A little common sense would go a long way in this debate.

Yes I agree that a description is important. Personally, it wouldn’t bother me in the least for the race of all suspects to be publicly disclosed. The point I was making was that the reasoning behind news agencies not disclosing race has at least some validity. The race of a perpetrator is really not much of a description. A real description involves race along with several other characteristics. So unless they are going to give a detailed description of the suspect, what’s the point of stating the suspect’s race? Saying “a black man in his 30s” is not much less vague than saying “a man in his 30s”. One will notice that when the media gives detailed descriptions of a suspect that includes height, weight, body type, complexion, hair length, tattoos, etc., they always include race.

Now one can argue that even if it is vague, it doesn’t hurt to state the race, but some will argue that it promotes profiling and even if it doesn’t, then a certain degree of political correctness does come into play.

Such PC may not be relatively bad. For instance, if someone introduced Secretary Rice as “the black secretary of State”, I would imagine that even the most conservative of people would see that as inappropriate. Such introductions were common 50+ years ago, but nowadays that would be considered very politically incorrect.

So while I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other, I can somewhat see the medias reasoning behind this guideline. What I have not noticed is the alleged double standard with regards to disclosing race and I continue to unsuccessfully search for any studies done on it.

I read fast so sorry if Shade or some already covered it, but IF a suspect is at large, there is a reason for providing a description of the suspect.

If the guy is captured and doing the perp walk, there is really no reason to provide a description as black or white or Asian.

You seem to not understand the difference between “I think” and “I know”. As I recall, speculation is given the thumbs up here.

it remotely possible that they are simply pointing out another example of PC behavior that is inconsistently applied?

One has to wonder why anyone would feel that they know that most of the folks in the media reporting crime a particular way simply do so for PC reasons. Is it remotely possible that they are simply following a guideline based on what they view as practicality (Does this response sound familiar?)?

Don’t be hypocritical Jan. People claim to know the motive behind people’s actions all of the time here. I have yet to see proof of this particular alleged inconsistent application and I speculate that “keeping score” is a strong motivation.

One curious dynamic which I have noted in dialogue today is that there are many folks who believe that they are capable of determining the motives of others.

One has to wonder why anyone would feel that they know that most of the folks on this board who were discussing the above crime reports simply want to “keep score.” Is it remotely possible that they are simply pointing out another example of PC behavior that is inconsistently applied?