Was that the State of the Union?

[BugI02]

I think the same argument applies for capitalizing 'white' as for 'black'

'black and white' means Kodak, 'Black and White' means Kumbaya

 

[jamil]

I think the same argument applies for capitalizing 'white' as for 'black'

'black and white' means Kodak, 'Black and White' means Kumbaya

It has long been established in sociology that you capitalize when it refers to a specific group of people. So, if you’re using “aborigines” generically to mean people who developed in the area over a long period of time, you wouldn’t capitalize. But if you’re speaking of a particular group, like the Aborigines from Australia, you would capitalize. It you’re talking about White people as a race, you capitalize, likewise with “Blacks”. But because of wokeness, they can’t bear to give that particular group a capital letter, because they don’t deserve it.

But I require more evidence that it’s an attitude of wokeness that makes one capitalize other groups and not that one, when other reasons would explain it.

But Scott can deliver what is obviously an anti woke speech, and missing one capital letter in a tweet erases all of that. Yep. He’s definitely Hydra.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

 

[Tombs]

That’s the dog whistle? He didn’t capitalize “white”?

Okay. So let me get this straight. Scott makes several statements that make progressive heads explode. But, because he didn’t capitalize “white”, it’s a secret “hail hydra” signal? That he’s really one of them, and doesn’t mean all the anti-woke **** he says?

He capitalized everything but white.

That's the important part.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut, you can lead the American horse to the 'systemic racism' water, but you can't make it drink

The attempts made to tell people how they must act and believe, that they can't simply be not against you but have to be actively for you, isn't going to make any converts

From where I sit, systemic racism is bull**** but racism still exists. You and I both know that there are some people who just don't like black people, but there is no organized effort behind it - it is a problem of upbringing or life experience or both

Are you arguing that systematic racism is bull**** “now,” or that it always has been? Further, here on INGO, we’ve often seen the “if they were White/Christian/Straight/male” lamentations concerning a variety of issues coast to coast. Are those comments just vocalizing frustrations, or do you believe the persons making such claims honestly hold those beliefs? And if so, how would that not be considered some sort of “systematic” discrimination? I ask, because how can one hand deny something exist in some instances, but seem to imply they exists with the other?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Or, it means maybe he should consider firing whoever is managing his social media account(s). Did the senator even type that himself? Is it possible whoever did is a bit too woke for the job?

Far as I know not capitalizing 'white'/the style book has only been an issue for less than a week, but probably has been a thing in academia for much longer before it came out in the open. Scott graduated in '88 from a private Southern Baptist college - somehow I think he isn't likely to have much interest in being woke. Be interested to see where his social media guy is from

Capitalization of white and black has been a subject of discussion for well more than a week. Here are a couple of articles from a quick search from about a year ago.

Updates to Reporting Black and White as Racial Categories

Everyone in the business of communication has a responsibility to use and promote the use of clear and accurate language, with words that reflect the world around us. As evidenced by perpetual upda…

amastyleinsider.com

Why we capitalize ‘Black’ (and not ‘white’)

At the Columbia Journalism Review, we capitalize Black, and not white, when referring to groups in racial, ethnic, or cultural terms. For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community. White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks...

www.cjr.org

Black and White: A Matter of Capitalization

In light of recent announcements elsewhere in publishing, many of our readers have been asking us whether we continue to recommend lowercase for terms such as black and white to refer to a person’s race or ethnicity, “unless a particular author or publisher prefers otherwise.”

cmosshoptalk.com

It also has changed multiple times over the years depending on who's writing guidelines you are following APA/AMA/Chicago/ASA/etc. Some have said capitalize both, neither, one or the other and they have changed over the years. If he went to college in the 80s it's quite possible that is what the writing guidelines his college required him to use mandated that.

It has long been established in sociology that you capitalize when it refers to a specific group of people. So, if you’re using “aborigines” generically to mean people who developed in the area over a long period of time, you wouldn’t capitalize. But if you’re speaking of a particular group, like the Aborigines from Australia, you would capitalize. It you’re talking about White people as a race, you capitalize, likewise with “Blacks”. But because of wokeness, they can’t bear to give that particular group a capital letter, because they don’t deserve it.

In sociology perhaps, but see above.

 

[jamil]

He capitalized everything but white.

That's the important part.

Hail Hydra.

 

[jamil]

Capitalization of white and black has been a subject of discussion for well more than a week. Here are a couple of articles from a quick search from about a year ago.

Updates to Reporting Black and White as Racial Categories

Everyone in the business of communication has a responsibility to use and promote the use of clear and accurate language, with words that reflect the world around us. As evidenced by perpetual upda…

amastyleinsider.com

Why we capitalize ‘Black’ (and not ‘white’)

At the Columbia Journalism Review, we capitalize Black, and not white, when referring to groups in racial, ethnic, or cultural terms. For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community. White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks...

www.cjr.org

Black and White: A Matter of Capitalization

In light of recent announcements elsewhere in publishing, many of our readers have been asking us whether we continue to recommend lowercase for terms such as black and white to refer to a person’s race or ethnicity, “unless a particular author or publisher prefers otherwise.”

cmosshoptalk.com

It also has changed multiple times over the years depending on who's writing guidelines you are following APA/AMA/Chicago/ASA/etc. Some have said capitalize both, neither, one or the other and they have changed over the years. If he went to college in the 80s it's quite possible that is what the writing guidelines his college required him to use mandated that.

In sociology perhaps, but see above.

That’s an interesting history. Thanks for posting it.

It is of course silly for writing standards organizations to be inconsistent when referring to groups. It only makes sense to be referring to race when referring to “white” people because White people aren’t actually white, just like Black people aren’t actually black. It doesn’t matter about “identity”; it’s referring to a group regardless.

That’s separate from the issue of Scott using it. It’s not indicative of wokeness to follow formal writing standards.

 

[Tombs]

That’s an interesting history. Thanks for posting it.

It is of course silly for writing standards organizations to be inconsistent when referring to groups. It only makes sense to be referring to race when referring to “white” people because White people aren’t actually white, just like Black people aren’t actually black. It doesn’t matter about “identity”; it’s referring to a group regardless.

That’s separate from the issue of Scott using it. It’s not indicative of wokeness to follow formal writing standards.

So why wasn't black, hispanic, or asian in lower case?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That’s an interesting history. Thanks for posting it.

It is of course silly for writing standards organizations to be inconsistent when referring to groups. It only makes sense to be referring to race when referring to “white” people because White people aren’t actually white, just like Black people aren’t actually black. It doesn’t matter about “identity”; it’s referring to a group regardless.

That’s separate from the issue of Scott using it. It’s not indicative of wokeness to follow formal writing standards.

You're more than welcome. Although you should thank Que. He mentioned it a few years ago when I asked him why he capitalized black but not white. He said that was the writing guidelines the college he went to required had it, and that is what he was used to.

So why wasn't black, hispanic, or asian in lower case?

See my post above, almost all if not all of the guidelines say to capitalize Hispanic, Asian, etc. black and white are the two that varies. Once again some say both, some say neither, and some say one but not the other. Or at least they did, as some of the links I posted mentioned they revise them every so often. Although the ones I seen where only one was capitalized it was black and not white. Usually for the same reason given now, black describes a culture and/or heritage like Hispanic. White does not, it's just a skin tone descriptor. At least according to some of the guidelines.

 

[jamil]

So why wasn't black, hispanic, or asian in lower case?

What? My post wasn't justifying the inconsistent literary standards. But that's a separate issue from you assuming it'sa dog whistle that Scott used the literary standards.

 

[jamil]

You're more than welcome. Although you should thank Que. He mentioned it a few years ago when I asked him why he capitalized black but not white. He said that was the writing guidelines the college he went to required had it, and that is what he was used to.

See my post above, almost all if not all of the guidelines say to capitalize Hispanic, Asian, etc. black and white are the two that varies. Once again some say both, some say neither, and some say one but not the other. Or at least they did, as some of the links I posted mentioned they revise them every so often. Although the ones I seen where only one was capitalized it was black and not white. Usually for the same reason given now, black describes a culture and/or heritage like Hispanic. White does not, it's just a skin tone descriptor. At least according to some of the guidelines.

In fact, every spell checker I've ever used will underline "Hispanic" if it's not capitalized. Same with Asian. Not with black or white because most usages in English have nothing to do with identity groups.

I strongly disagree with the makers of the standard, and I suspect it's wokeness, notwithstanding how long ago those standards were in place. "Wokeness" has been a thing for several decades, hidden in humanities departments at American universities. But has since been mainstreamed. I think it's an excuse. If they're just referring to skin tone, let's be honest. I'm pretty "White", but I ain't "white". More like a peachy, pastey tannish color like you'd find on a typical person of Irish descent.

While it's true that Blacks and Hispanics identify more with a distinct culture, and that White people don't generally have a culture to the extent to justify a capital letter, then why do the Black identitiarians constantly talk about the evils of "Whiteness"? If it's not a culture they're associating with white-skinned people, then what exactly are they disparaging? I think the anthropology departments had it right. When you're talking about a people as a specific, distinct group, you capitalize the letter.

 

[BugI02]

Are you arguing that systematic racism is bull**** “now,” or that it always has been? Further, here on INGO, we’ve often seen the “if they were White/Christian/Straight/male” lamentations concerning a variety of issues coast to coast. Are those comments just vocalizing frustrations, or do you believe the persons making such claims honestly hold those beliefs? And if so, how would that not be considered some sort of “systematic” discrimination? I ask, because how can one hand deny something exist in some instances, but seem to imply they exists with the other?

I think 'systemic racism' in law enforcement would have to be something like the captain, or whoever was giving the briefing, to exhort the rank and file to remember how it was up to 'the man' to keep the black folk 'down' - with perhaps the chief sharing data on how successful they had been at said purpose with his staff to let them know when to push harder. Systemic means just that, all through the system. So I think systemic racism as meant today is bull****

I will grant you that there are and have always been officers who could be biased about a certain group of people, but even then that bias is more likely to be based on how people live their lives rather than on any superficial characteristic, a bias against 'dirtballism'.

You were LEO, when you were disgusted by 'parents' that couldn't be bothered to adequately take care of their children because they were too busy drinking/doing drugs, did it matter to you whether they were white or black?

 

[KG1]

The bottom line: Is there systemic racism as a whole within LE policy wise? If not then it falls to each individual officer within the ranks and how they conduct themselves according to policy. if a majority serve honorably then it is not system racism.

 

[jamil]

Are you arguing that systematic racism is bull**** “now,” or that it always has been? Further, here on INGO, we’ve often seen the “if they were White/Christian/Straight/male” lamentations concerning a variety of issues coast to coast. Are those comments just vocalizing frustrations, or do you believe the persons making such claims honestly hold those beliefs? And if so, how would that not be considered some sort of “systematic” discrimination? I ask, because how can one hand deny something exist in some instances, but seem to imply they exists with the other?

I think most examples of “systemic racism” that CRT types insist exists are BS. I also think systemic racism does exist but is rare because of the civil rights act. One example I think is legitimate is stop-n-frisk.

Here’s an example of BS systemic racism, and why it’s ********. During the pandemic UofL students had to do many classes online. Professors insisted that students use lockdown browsers for online exams to prevent cheating. It works with the camera to ensure you don’t get up and leave. The software, however, had a hard time detecting people with darker skin and was proven to give false positives for these students leaving their seats.

This was declared to be systemic racism and the lockdown browser policy was discontinued. It was right to discontinue the policy because the product was defective. It was not systemic racism, however. There’s no evidence that the provider or the school intended to single out people with dark skin. But CRT calls that systemically racist because the outcome specifically affects people of color. And that’s BS. To get racism out of that takes a lot more investigation than simply looking at outcome.

 

[jamil]

The bottom line: Is there systemic racism within LE policy wise? If not then it falls to each individual officer within the ranks and how they conduct themselves according to policy. if a majority serve honorably then it is not system racism.

Show me specific examples of systemic racism within LE policy wise.

Like I’ve said, I think the stop and frisk policies are. But certainly not every policy that might have a disproportionate affect on Black people. Real ass racism requires an element of intent/belief. In the example I gave, they’d need to investigate to know if the lockdown browser had some real ass racist cause.

 

[KG1]

Like I’ve said, I think the stop and frisk policies are. But certainly not every policy that might have a disproportionate affect on Black people. Real ass racism requires an element of intent/belief. In the example I gave, they’d need to investigate to know if the lockdown browser had some real ass racist cause.

I guess one can argue profiling is an example and that could lead to more encounters with minorities.

 

[jamil]

I think 'systemic racism' in law enforcement would have to be something like the captain, or whoever was giving the briefing, to exhort the rank and file to remember how it was up to 'the man' to keep the black folk 'down' - with perhaps the chief sharing data on how successful they had been at said purpose with his staff to let them know when to push harder. Systemic means just that, all through the system. So I think systemic racism as meant today is bull****

I will grant you that there are and have always been officers who could be biased about a certain group of people, but even then that bias is more likely to be based on how people live their lives rather than on any superficial characteristic, a bias against 'dirtballism'.

You were LEO, when you were disgusted by 'parents' that couldn't be bothered to adequately take care of their children because they were too busy drinking/doing drugs, did it matter to you whether they were white or black?

I think institutional racism is a policy or something that has the effect of policy. So either the policies single out or intentionally favor or disfavor one or more races, or, the general attitudes of people in that institution are such that it’s just known by everyone that it’s how it works.