Polityczna poprawność

kr2y510

konfederata targowicki
12 480
22 598
No cóż, piesek medialny PiS, Sakiewicz walczy o narodowy i katolicki elektorat. Wybory się zbliżają, a PiS musi wygrać i przepchać 447. Naklejka będzie dostępna z Gazetą Polską, w której znajdzie się ładunek propagandowy.
Po wyborach taki wybryk się nie powtórzy. Mosbacher będzie mogła być spokojna. A na razie pomogła wypromować Gazetę Polską. Ja przypuszczam, że to była ustawka.
 

T.M.

antyhumanista, anarchista bez flagi
1 279
3 931
*Marks przenosi się w czasie do 2019*

"Ok, zobaczmy, czy już sobie poradzili z kapitalizmem"

*widzi to ^*

:D

Czy ten macbook, którego tam noszą za mównicą, nikogo nie striggerował?
 

FatBantha

sprzedawca niszowych etosów
Członek Załogi
7 755
21 447

Academic Science Rethinks All-Too-White 'Dude Walls' Of Honor
August 25, 20198:06 AM ET

NELL GREENFIELDBOYCE



All the portraits hanging on the wall inside the Louis Bornstein Family Amphitheater at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston on June 12, 2018 were of men, nearly all white. The portraits have since been removed.
Pat Greenhouse/Boston Globe via Getty Images
A few years ago, TV celebrity Rachel Maddow was at Rockefeller University to hand out a prize that's given each year to a prominent female scientist. As Maddow entered the auditorium, someone overheard her say, "What is up with the dude wall?"

She was referring to a wall covered with portraits of scientists from the university who have won either a Nobel Prize or the Lasker Award, a major medical prize.

"One hundred percent of them are men. It's probably 30 headshots of 30 men. So it's imposing," says Leslie Vosshall, a neurobiologist with the university and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

At Yale School of Medicine, for example, one main building's hallways feature 55 portraits: three women and 52 men. They're all white.

"I don't necessarily always have a reaction. But then there are times when you're having a really bad day — someone says something racist to you, or you're struggling with feeling like you belong in the space — and then you see all those photos and it kind of reinforces whatever you might have been feeling at the time," says Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, a medical student at Yale.

He grew up reading Harry Potter books, and in that fictional world, portraits can talk to the characters. "If this was Harry Potter," he muses, "if they could speak, what would they even say to me? Everywhere you study, there's a big portrait somewhere of someone kind of staring you down."

Yale medical student Nientara Anderson recently teamed up with fellow student Elizabeth Fitzsousa and associate professor Dr. Anna Reisman to study the effect of this artwork; the results were published in July in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

"Students felt like these portraits were not just ancient, historic things that had nothing to do with their contemporary experience," says Anderson. "They actually felt that the portraits reinforced contemporary issues of exclusion, of racial discrimination — of othering."

Yale has recently been commissioning new portraits, including one of Carolyn Slayman, a geneticist and member of the Yale faculty for nearly 50 years, as well as one of Dr. Beatrix Hamburg, a pioneering developmental psychiatrist and the first black female Yale medical school graduate. And there's an ongoing discussion at Yale about what to do with all those old portraits lining the hallways.

One option is to move them someplace else. That was the approach taken at the department of Molecular & Integrative Physiology at the University of Michigan. Ally Cara, a Ph.D. student there, says its seminar room "featured portraits of our past department chairs, which happened to be all male."

Dr. Santiago Schnell began his service a couple years ago, he wanted to bring a more modern update to our seminar room," Cara says, "including bringing down the dude wall and relocating it."

The photos are now in a less noticeable spot: the department chair's office suite. And the seminar room will soon be decorated with artwork depicting key discoveries made by the department's faculty, students, and trainees.

"We really want to emphasize that we're not trying to erase our history," says Cara. "We're proud of the people who have brought us to where we are today as a department. But we also want to show that we have a diverse and inclusive department."

Changes like this can be a sensitive subject. At Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, one of Harvard's teaching hospitals, there's an auditorium that for decades was covered with large portraits of 31 men.

"It made an impression," says Dr. Jeffrey Flier of Harvard Medical School, who first saw the wall of portraits back in the 1970's. But recently, he walked in the auditorium and "was taken aback because, instead of this room filled with portraits of historically important figures from the Brigham, the walls were empty."

The portraits were relocated to different places around the hospital. And while Flier says he understands why there needed to be a change, he prefers the approach taken in another Harvard meeting place called the Waterhouse Room.

It had long been decorated with paintings of former deans, says Flier, and "all of those individuals were white males. I am among them now, hanging up there as the most recent former dean of Harvard Medical School."

But right up there with Flier's portrait are photographs of well-known female and African-American physician-scientists, he says, because his predecessor added them to the walls of that room.

"You don't want to take away the history of which you are justifiably proud," says Flier. "You don't want to make it look like you are embarrassed by that history. Use the space to reflect some of the past history and some of the changing realities that you want to emphasize."

But some argue that the old portraits themselves have erased history, by glorifying white men who hold power while ignoring the contributions to science and medicine made by women and people of color.

One rare exception, and a poignant example of the power and meaning of portraits in science and medicine, can be found at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. There, a black technician named Vivien Thomas worked for a white surgeon named Alfred Blalock. Even though Thomas had only a high school degree, he joined Blalock's lab in 1930; the pair spent decades developing pioneering techniques for cardiac surgery together.

The last time the two ever spoke, Blalock was in poor health, and in a wheelchair. Together they went to see the portrait of Blalock that had recently been hung in the lobby of the clinical sciences building, which had been named after him.

Soon after that, Blalock died. And a few years later, Thomas received word that a group of surgeons was commissioning a portrait of him. "My first reaction was that surely I must be dreaming," Thomas wrote in his autobiography, which he originally entitled Presentation of a Portrait: The Story of a Life.

When the portrait was presented to the hospital in 1971, Thomas told the assembled surgeons that he felt proud and humbled. "People in my category are not accustomed to being in the limelight as most of you are," Thomas said. "If our names get into the print, it's usually in the very fine print down at the bottom somewhere."

In his memoir Thomas wrote, "it had been the most emotional and gratifying experience of my life." He wondered where the portrait would be hung, and thought someplace like the 12th floor, near the laboratory area, would be appropriate. He was "astounded" when Dr. Russell Nelson, then the hospital president, stated "We're going to hang your fine portrait with professor Blalock. We think you hung together and you had better continue to hang together."
 

alfacentauri

Well-Known Member
1 148
1 892
Widzę, że temat poszedł na inne tory niż chciał zakładający go. A ja mam zamiar w jeszcze inną go obrócić. Wracając może do początku. Pisałem nie raz na forum, że uważam, że dla zaistnienia i dobrego funkcjonowania społeczeństwa wolnościowego jest korzystne występowanie wśród ludzi pewnych wzorców zachowań. Takim wzorcem może być poszanowanie dla wyborów dokonywanych przez innych ludzi, którzy nie uderzają w wolność i własność innych jednostek. Dla mnie dziwaczna jest postawa Hansa Hermanna Hoppego, który będąc libertarianinem chce wszystkimi dostępnymi metodami nie łamiącymi NAPu utrudnić i uprzykrzyć życie ludziom, którzy nie wyrządzają krzywdy innym a robią rzeczy, które nie podobają się Hoppemu tj. zażywają narkotyki lub trudnią się bądź korzystają z prostytucji. Choć formalnie nie ma tu sprzeczności to taka postawa jest dla mnie jakoś niekonsekwentna. Jeśli ktoś uważa, że ludzie mogą robić co chcą o ile nie krzywdzą innych to po co ma zwalczać (nawet w sposób nie łamiący NAPu) takie zachowania? Co więcej takie promowanie miękkiej agresji w stosunku do nierobiących krzywdy innym może podważać pewien wolnościowy fundament. A jedną z form takiej miękkiej agresji może być mowa nienawiści. I jeśli poprawność polityczna to taki sposób mówienia, w którym nie obraża się innych to jakimś rozwiązaniem jest właśnie stworzenie libertariańskiej poprawności politycznej. Będziemy mieć wtedy do czynienia z autocenzurą, tylko pojawi się nowy problem, ponieważ stworzy się kolejny wzorzec zachowania, który może być przeszkodą na drodze do wolności. Bo jeśli dla libertarian ma być wartością wolność wypowiedzi to wtedy będziemy hamować tę swobodę wypowiadania się. Czy jest to antagonizm, którego nie da się rozwiązać? Może większym problemem niż agresja słowna jest nadwrażliwość na słowa? Mówi się, że słowa nie bolą, ale chyba często jednak jest inaczej, bo takie zaszczepiono ludziom wzorce. Może problemem jest honor. Kawador w temacie o czarnej przestępczości pisze, że powodem agresji wśród afroamerykanów nie są koniecznie jakieś wojny pomiędzy narkotykowymi mafiami, a całkiem często jakieś błahostki. Ktoś się poczuł urażony i wpakował komuś innemu kulkę w głowę. W temacie o islamie były tam jakieś informacje o młodych muzułmanach w Europie co pobili jakąś staruszkę, bo nie okazywała im należnego szacunku. Choć bardzo mocno to widać wśród murzynów czy muzułmanów i tam skala tego bije po oczach to problem nie dotyczy tylko ich. Może jedną z tych rzeczy, którą warto byłoby promować to jest dystans do siebie, pobłażanie dla niemiłych słów i próba zmiany pejoratywnego odbioru niektórych z nich oraz jakieś sprowadzenie do parteru pojęć takich jak honor czy godność? I to co tu wymieniłem byłoby może wręcz konserwowane przez polityczną poprawność nawet w libertariańskim wykonaniu?
 

FatBantha

sprzedawca niszowych etosów
Członek Załogi
7 755
21 447
Według mnie podejście Hoppego włącza do libertarianizmu pewien aspekt komunitariańskiej myśli o kosztach kultury [niezbędnej do utrzymania], bez której potencjalne społeczeństwo libertariańskie się załamie lub straci tożsamość w wyniku zupełnie swobodnie poczynających sobie ludzi przeprowadzających dywersję ideologiczną w ramach nieograniczonej wolności słowa czy tym bardziej - stylu bycia.

Klasyczny thin libertarianism nie bierze pod uwagę takich kwestii jak wrogie idee czy próby demoralizacji - zajmuje się jedynie precyzyjnym i formalnym określaniem granic wpływów jednostek. Milcząco zakłada, że wszyscy chcą żyć w społeczeństwie opartym na tych zasadach. Problem w tym, że burzyć normy społeczne można stopniowo, również za pośrednictwem środków nieformalnych, w zgodzie z aksjomatami, omijając ich zakres działania, poruszając się poniekąd w ich martwej strefie, której nie sposób obronić przed erozją. I co wtedy?

Zawsze będzie potrzeba wyciszania czy pozbywania się ludzi brużdżących preferowanemu przez nas ustrojowi społecznemu i od tego się nie ucieknie. W myśl zasady "kto nie pracuje, niech też nie je", można powiedzieć: "kto nie chce utrzymywać libertariańskiego stylu życia, niech też wynosi się poza margines libertariańskiego społeczeństwa, bo jest w nim zbędny".

Z jednej strony może być przykre, że nie jesteśmy w stanie być na tyle tolerancyjni, by nawet swoim przeciwnikom zagwarantować nieformalnie tyle samo wolności co sobie, ale ostatecznie dbać należy o swoich, czyli tych, którzy mają jakiś pozytywny wkład i podtrzymują nasz prefereowany ład, a nie kontestujących go. Kontestatorom należy wtedy utrudniać życie wszelkimi dostępnymi środkami, by zniwelować ich wpływ.

Inną sprawą są natomiast na sztywno i z góry wyznaczane przez Hoppego grupy nieformalnych wrogów publicznych. Moim zdaniem należy to traktować jako potencjalne kandydatury, które zawsze mogą się zmienić. Myślę, że Hoppe włącza część tych grup z powodu ich dzisiejszej postawy i przejawianej aprobaty wobec rozwiazań antywolnościowych. Tyle, że ta aprobata zawsze może zostać wycofana i w praktyce moglibyśmy się zdziwić, gdybyśmy przyjrzeli się, kto chciałby bronić akapu i swoich interesów w nim, a kto nie, gdyby jakiś akap powstał.

Z całą pewnością realne społeczeństwo libertarianskie zyskałoby jakichś wrogów, zarówno zewnętrznych jak i wewnętrznych, którym należałoby zatruwać życie, by nie byli w stanie niczego zepsuć. Ale czy miałoby to dokładne pokrycie w rozpisce usual suspects Hoppego? Tu zalecana byłaby już większa ostrożność.
 
Ostatnia edycja:

FatBantha

sprzedawca niszowych etosów
Członek Załogi
7 755
21 447
Reklamy Volkswagena i Mondeleza zabronione w UK. Powód: zawierają stereotypy dotyczące płci. Upiorny robi się ten nowy totalitaryzm.

Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
  • 14 August 2019
Television advertisements from US food giant Mondelez and German carmaker Volkswagen are the first to be banned under new UK gender stereotyping rules.

A ban on ads featuring "harmful gender stereotypes" or those which are likely to cause "serious or widespread offence" came into force in June.

The first banned ad, for Philadelphia cheese, showed two fathers leaving a baby on a restaurant conveyor belt.

The other, VW ad, showed men being adventurous as a woman sat by a pram.

Complaints
Some 128 people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about the Mondelez advert for its Philadelphia cheese which featured two dads leaving a baby on a restaurant buffet conveyor belt as they were distracted by the food.

Complainants said the advertisement perpetuated a harmful stereotype by suggesting that men were incapable of caring for children and were so incompetent they would place youngsters at risk.

Meanwhile, three people complained about an ad for the Volkswagen eGolf car.

It showed a sleeping woman and a man in a tent on a sheer cliff face, two male astronauts floating in a space ship and a male para-athlete doing the long jump, before cutting to the final scene showing a woman sitting on a bench next to a pram.

Complainants said that the ad perpetuated harmful gender stereotypes by showing men engaged in adventurous activities in contrast to a woman in a care-giving role.

Jess Tye, investigations manager at the Advertising Standards Authority, told the BBC that gender stereotypes in advertising could cause "real-world harms".

"Ads that specifically contrast male and female stereotypes need to be handled with care," she said.

"It's about thinking about what the cumulative effect of those gender stereotypes might be."

'Code breached'
Mondelez UK argued that the ad showed a positive image of men with a responsible and active role in childcare in modern society. It said it chose to feature a pair of fathers to avoid a stereotype of new mothers being responsible for children.

Image copyright MondelezUK
Image caption Mondelez UK said the ad showed a positive image of men
The ASA said the ad had a light-hearted and comical intent, but portrayed the men as "somewhat hapless and inattentive, which resulted in them being unable to care for the children effectively".

It said the ad "relied on the stereotype that men were unable to care for children as well as women, and implied that the fathers had failed to look after the children properly because of their gender".

Volkswagen UK said that its ad made no suggestion that childcare was solely associated with women, and the fact that the woman in its advertisement was calm and reading could be seen as going against the stereotypical depiction of harassed or anxious parents in advertising.

The ASA said the ad presented gender stereotypes "in a way that was likely to cause harm and therefore breached the code."

It said by juxtaposing images of men "in extraordinary environments and carrying out adventurous activities" with women who appeared "passive or engaged in a stereotypical care-giving role", the ad had suggested that stereotypical male and female roles were exclusively associated with one gender.

The ASA introduced its ban two months ago because it found some portrayals could play a part in "limiting people's potential".

The new rules cover both broadcast and non-broadcast adverts, including online and social media.

 

tolep

ChNiNK! ChP!
7 789
13 594
Wednesday, 13 November 2019
I was a liberal NY prof, but when I said the left was going too far, colleagues called me a NAZI & treated me like a RUSSIAN SPY
by Michael Rectenwald

(...)

Much like Jordan Peterson, my tipping point involved the pronoun wars, although, as you’ll see, I enjoyed a more satirical approach. When the University of Michigan instituted a policy that offered students a carte blanche pronoun preference opportunity, a clever student offered “His Majesty” as his chosen pronoun, and his blasphemous pronoun choice made the news. The satirical trope hilariously underscored the absurdity of gender and pronoun proliferation, and the institutional lunacy that has attempted to keep pace with it. I posted a link to an article about the spoof on Facebook, without comment. I then proceeded to teach for the rest of the afternoon.

By the time I noticed the pandemonium, it was too late to manage it.

(...)

https://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=68854
 

FatBantha

sprzedawca niszowych etosów
Członek Załogi
7 755
21 447
Netflix Turning Too Blue? Republicans’ Perception of the Brand Has Dropped, Data Shows
By Todd Spangler
NY Digital Editor
Hollywood’s left-leaning politics has made the industry a bête noire among conservatives for decades. But Netflix has made some recent moves that have especially rankled Republicans.

In March, the streamer named Susan Rice — former national security adviser to President Obama, and a conservative target in the Bengazi scandal — to its board of directors. Last month, Netflix officially announced an exclusive multiyear deal with the Obamas’ Higher Ground Productions for original programming. And last week, it premiered “The Break with Michelle Wolf” — a late-night-style show from the comedian who delivered a blistering takedown of the Trump administration and other conservative politicos at the White House Correspondents Association dinner.

Thousands of right-wingers have taken to social media to express their unhappiness with Netflix’s left turns. They’ve condemned Netflix, announced they have dropped the streaming service, and urged like-minded folks to also cancel.

How much has Netflix alienated the right? New data from YouGov, a brand-perception research firm, indicates that Netflix’s positive-impression rating among Republicans in the U.S. has drifted down 16% from the beginning of 2018 through May 31, according to data from YouGov’s BrandIndex. At the same time, Netflix’s approval rating with Democrats has risen 15% over the same time period (see chart, below).

That said, Netflix maintains a relatively high favorability rating — even among Americans who identify as Republicans. YouGov BrandIndex’s Impression survey measures overall perception on a scale of -100 to 100, and Netflix is in firm positive territory across the political spectrum.

Indeed, Netflix is the No. 2 most popular TV network overall tracked by YouGov (based data from Nov. 10, 2017-May 28, 2018), ranking behind only Discovery. For 2017, Netflix had the second-highest average “buzz” score after Amazon, per YouGov’s measurement of week-to-week consumer reactions brands — ahead of Nike, Apple and M&M’s. Netflix also is No. 7 among brands people say they’d be “proud” to work for on YouGov’s 2018 workforce ranking.

All the same, the 21-point differential in Netflix’s brand perception scores as of May 31 between Dems (62.8) and GOP-ers (41.8) on YouGov’s Impression survey is telling.

Netflix declined to comment on the YouGov results. (The company typically does not weigh in on third-party data.)

For now, it’s difficult to definitively gauge the scope of the #CancelNetflix conservative backlash, and whether that will put any kind of dent in its subscriber momentum. Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer — who has personal ties to Democratic figures — has suggested critics wait for the actual content that emerges from the Obamas’ production company before passing judgment.

“This is not The Obama Network,” said Sarandos, speaking at the Paley Center for Media in New York on May 29. “There’s no political slant to the programming.”


The disavowal by Sarandos that the Obamas will not produce content with a political agenda has not gone over well with conservatives who harbor an intractable enmity toward the 44th U.S. president.

And Sarandos’ statements are fairly disingenuous. While Higher Ground probably won’t produce a documentary, say, exploring the FBI’s probe of the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia, the content is expected to have a progressive worldview. One idea that’s brewing is for a Netflix show hosted by Barack Obama discussing health care, voting rights, immigration, foreign policy, and climate change, per a New York Times report.

Meanwhile, “The Break with Michelle Wolf,” the weekly half-hour variety/sketch series with new episodes streaming every Sunday, certainly isn’t helping Netflix win over any conservative fans. In her June 3 segment, Wolf delivers this zinger: “Don’t compare Trump to an ape — because that’s rude to apes! Compared to Trump, apes are quite accomplished!”

To put this into perspective, Netflix’s politically charged content is just a tiny fraction of the stuff it pumps out. I’m guessing most customers probably don’t care about the board appointment of Susan Rice — or even know who she is. And through its relationship with the Obamas, Netflix is calculating that the appeal of the ex-First Couple will outweigh upsetting any haters.

Then there’s this important point: Netflix is a global service, operating in more than 190 countries. Barack Obama left office last year with very high worldwide approval ratings: an average of 76% of respondents in 24 countries said he was a good president, according to research firm Ipsos. Asked about Trump, 66% said they believed he would be a bad president.
 

FatBantha

sprzedawca niszowych etosów
Członek Załogi
7 755
21 447
2020-07-17
Hamilton prywatnie rozmawiał z kierowcami, którzy nie klękali

Lewis Hamilton wierzy, że niebawem wszyscy kierowcy F1 klękną przed wyścigiem w geście poparcia dla ruchów antyrasistowskich. Brytyjczyk przed trzecią rundą mistrzostw świata F1 zdradził, że przeprowadził prywatne rozmowy z tymi kolegami, którzy do tej pory nie zdecydowali się na taki ruch.

Podczas, gdy kierowcy F1 mieli zorganizowane wystąpienie w geście poparcia ruchów antyrasistowskich przed wyścigiem o GP Austrii, tydzień później nie było tego w oficjalnych planach. O tym, że kierowcy zdecydują się ponownie klęknąć przed wyścigiem zdecydowano dopiero na piątkowej odprawie zawodników.
Przed pierwszym wyścigiem sezonu cała 20-stka kierowców maiła na sobie koszulki z napisem End Racism, a 14 z nich zdecydowało się klęknąć.
Ci, którzy nie uczynili takiego gestu twierdzili, że woleli wyrazić szacunek na swój własny sposób, unikając gestu, który w ich kulturach i narodach mógłby zostać odebrany w zupełnie inny sposób.
Hamilton przyznał, że cieszy go iż zawodnicy sami zdecydowali o kontynuowaniu gestu klękania przed drugim wyścigiem i zdradził, że przeprowadził prywatne rozmowy ze wszystkim, którzy tego nie uczynili.
"[W Styrii] z jakiegoś powodu nie planowaliśmy ponownego klękania, ale ustaliliśmy to podczas odprawy kierowców. Mieliśmy rozmowę na Zoomie" mówił Hamilton. "Debatowaliśmy nad tym czy ponownie uklękniemy. Powiedziałem, że zamierzam dalej to robić. Niektórzy mówili w ten sposób: no dobra już zrobiliśmy to w zeszłym tygodniu, nie będę tego znowu robił. Niektórzy chcieli kontynuować takie samo podejście co za pierwszym razem."
"Właśnie dlatego starałem się spędzić trochę czasu sam na sam z tymi, którzy stwierdzili, że wolą stać. Mieliśmy rozmowę. Z punktu widzenia kierowców, myślę, że zbliżamy się do zjednoczenia w tym okresie. Nie mówię, że wszyscy klękniemy, ale z czasem zaczniemy o tym mówić częściej."
"Lubię myśleć, że na pewnym etapie, wszyscy będziemy razem, zrozumiemy to i uklękniemy."
Hamilton zdradził, że przed wyścigiem w Styrii zapanował spory chaos na polach startowych dlatego, że klękania nie było w oficjalnym harmonogramie weekendu.
Kierowcy startujący z dalszych pól startowych musieli się spieszyć, aby zdążyć się ustawić przed bolidami, a Kevin Magnussen w ogóle zrezygnował z obecności po tym jak okazało się, że nie ma pod ręką koszulki z napisem End Racism i maseczki ochronnej.
"Ponieważ my to zaplanowaliśmy, to nie było tego w harmonogramie FIA. Wszystko odbyło się w pośpiechu. Mieliśmy stawić się tam na 15 minut przed startem. Ja byłem tam na 10 minut przed, a inni kierowcy musieli przyjść ze znacznie dalszych pozycji. Próbowaliśmy się tam dostać, ale było zbyt późno."
"Być może następnym razem wykonamy z tym lepszą robotę jeżeli będziemy coś takiego robić. To jednak nie jest mój wybór."
 

FatBantha

sprzedawca niszowych etosów
Członek Załogi
7 755
21 447
Jak widać, w dobie zachodnich szaleństw, to Putin i Rosjanie nabijają sobie punkty za soft power, reprezentując stronę RiGCzu.
Coraz więcej artykułów i publicystyki RT dotyczy amerykańskich odpałów poprawnościopolitycznych.


Guy Birchall
21 Jul, 2020 18:34
Top news agency the Associated Press has decided that Black should be spelt with a capital letter and white shouldn’t. This is pointless pedantry pandering to the woke left that will cause more division.
Great news! The Associated Press has worked out how to end racism at the push of a button. One of the world’s largest news agencies has decided that from now on it will capitalize the “B” in “Black people” and that will be the silver bullet to end prejudice. However, it won’t be capitalizing the “w” for “white people”, because apparently the normal rules of English grammar do not apply to institutions as prestigious as AP.
In a baffling blog highlighting the changes to its style guide on its website last month, it explained that it would “capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa.”
The post, written by AP’s Vice President for Standards, John Daniszewski, added: “The lowercase black is a color, not a person.”
That final sentence makes this month’s update from Mr Daniszewski all the more interesting, as it is titled “Why we will lowercase white”. If lowercase black is a color, not a person, then surely the same follows for “white”? Are we to understand from this that white people aren’t people? Because that could be considered pretty insulting.
But don’t worry; white people aren’t the only group AP has managed to insult with its justification of this ridiculous decision. According to AP “people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world….[whereas] White people generally do not share the same history and culture.”
I’m no woke snowflake, but that sounds a bit racist to me. There are 1.2 billion people in Africa across 54 different countries, and there are at least 2,000 different languages spoken on the continent. By any estimation that is pretty diverse. However according to AP, that amounts to a “strong cultural commonality”, justifying lumping all of them into one homogenous blob.
It seems to be implying that white history is so complex that Swedes, Brits and the French, obviously, need to be separated into distinct groups, but Nigerians, Kenyans, Ethiopians and even black Americans can all be lumped together. If that isn’t racist, I don’t know what is.
Plainly this is a ploy to curry favour with the woke left and jump on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon by pandering to identity politics. Quite why it believes capitalization of an adjective will do this is beyond me. It claims that the capitalization of “Black” simply brings it in line with “long-standing capitalization of other racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American and Native American.” But those are all adjectives derived from proper nouns, just as African American is. Black, like white, is just a color.
Daniszewski defends his decision to capitalize Black and not white by saying that white supremacists capitalize “white” and for AP to do so “risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.” This may be true, but then why play the identity politics game from the opposite end? The fact is that the woke left and white supremacists both have an obsession with racializing everything; they are two sides of the same coin. AP, as an allegedly impartial news source, should not be pandering to either of them.
Associated Press wymyśla sobie rasistowskie "zasady" ortograficzne. Nieźle.
 

FatBantha

sprzedawca niszowych etosów
Członek Załogi
7 755
21 447
Serio. To nie jest ruski fejksnius. Patrzcie:

July 20, 2020, by John Daniszewski

AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses. This decision follows our move last month to capitalize Black in such uses. We consulted with a wide group of people internally and externally around the globe and considered a variety of commentary in making these decisions.
There was clear desire and reason to capitalize Black. Most notably, people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world. That includes the shared experience of discrimination due solely to the color of one’s skin.
There is, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color. In addition, we are a global news organization and in much of the world there is considerable disagreement, ambiguity and confusion about whom the term includes.
We agree that white people’s skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore those problems. But capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.
Some have expressed the belief that if we don’t capitalize white, we are being inconsistent and discriminating against white people or, conversely, that we are implying that white is the default. We also recognize the argument that capitalizing the term could pull white people more fully into issues and discussions of race and equality. We will closely watch how usage and thought evolves, and will periodically review our decision.
As the AP Stylebook currently directs, we will continue to avoid the broad and imprecise term brown in racial, ethnic or cultural references. If using the term is necessary as part of a direct quotation, we will continue to use the lowercase.
For more details, see the AP Stylebook’s race-related coverage guidance, which says in part: “Consider carefully when deciding whether to identify people by race. Often, it is an irrelevant factor and drawing unnecessary attention to someone’s race or ethnicity can be interpreted as bigotry.”
The guidance also says:

Reporting and writing about issues involving race calls for thoughtful consideration, precise language, and an openness to discussions with others of diverse backgrounds about how to frame coverage or what language is most appropriate, accurate and fair. Avoid broad generalizations and labels; race and ethnicity are one part of a person’s identity. Identifying people by race and reporting on actions that have to do with race often go beyond simple style questions, challenging journalists to think broadly about racial issues before having to make decisions on specific situations and stories.In all coverage — not just race-related coverage — strive to accurately represent the world, or a particular community, and its diversity through the people you quote and depict in all formats. Omissions and lack of inclusion can render people invisible and cause anguish.

For AP coverage of racial injustice issues: https://apnews.com/Racialinjustice


June 19, 2020, by John Daniszewski
We are today making an important change to AP style that stems from a long and fruitful conversation among news leaders, editors and diverse members of our staff and external groups and organizations.
AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa. The lowercase black is a color, not a person.
We also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place.
These changes align with long-standing capitalization of other racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American and Native American. Our discussions on style and language consider many points, including the need to be inclusive and respectful in our storytelling and the evolution of language. We believe this change serves those ends.
As a global news organization, we are continuing to discuss within the U.S. and internationally whether to capitalize the term white. Considerations are many and include any implications that doing so might have outside the United States.
We continue to discuss other terms, including minorities and people of color, as well as the term “Black, Indigenous and people of color.”
Our revisions come after more than two years of in-depth research and discussion with colleagues and respected thinkers from a diversity of backgrounds, both within and from outside the cooperative. The updates become part of the AP Stylebook’s race-related coverage guidance, which begins:
Reporting and writing about issues involving race calls for thoughtful consideration, precise language, and an openness to discussions with others of diverse backgrounds about how to frame coverage or what language is most appropriate, accurate and fair.
Avoid broad generalizations and labels; race and ethnicity are one part of a person’s identity. Identifying people by race and reporting on actions that have to do with race often go beyond simple style questions, challenging journalists to think broadly about racial issues before having to make decisions on specific situations and stories.
In all coverage — not just race-related coverage — strive to accurately represent the world, or a particular community, and its diversity through the people you quote and depict in all formats. Omissions and lack of inclusion can render people invisible and cause anguish.
 
Do góry Bottom