I wasn't eliminated because I was Austria. I was eliminated because Russia and Turkey formed a juggernaut.

@abg
For heaven's sake, don't trivialise a very important issue

But... Abg's joke actually illustrates the concept of our ability to shift culpability and agency through language.

They really shouldn't have picked on the Martin and Brown cases... Not helping their cause.

No trivializing intended. I actually think we have a systemic problem of using language to passively blame victims. For instance, how often do you hear "she was raped" (which implies she was responsible for being raped by some mystery force) rather than "he raped her" (which clearly stated he was commiting the act of rape).

Now, I think this is clearly a symptom rather than a cause, but focusing more on how we use language may illustrate our unconscious biases.

Language is a tricky thing. It is not only a collection and arrangement of how to communicate, but due to the structure of the language itself, it can also structure the way its users think (it's a structuring structure in other words). So, how we use language does matter because it does shape the way we actually think about things, not just an expression of what we think.

In the case of "she was raped," I don't think there is an implication that she was responsible for being raped but rather it is stated as something having been done to the subject without referencing what was the mechanism or the actor who had done it. The focus is on the subject. When we say "he raped her," the focus is on the perpetrator. In this case, I don't think the two statements should bias our thinking one way or another.

However, in the article, there is something fundamentally different about “Oh, they did that to you because you’re black” and "They did it because they were bigots." The first sentence definitely implies that the action was caused by the fact that someone was black or that it was deserved. Being black is then a justified cause for whatever they did. So not only does it say that being black is a problem but also it justifies whatever was done. This is clearly wrong, so the second statement is a more accurate statement of why something happened. Whatever was done was done because those people were bigots; it doesn't blame the victim but acknowledge that those people were bigots.

In theory I agree with you. However, it has been my experience that people will go out of their way to make the woman the subject so they can avoid claiming the man committed a crime. That's just been my experience. It may not be representative of society at large. I agree that the examples made in the artlice illustrate the point better than I.

I don't recognize any of this. The victim is usually the subject because the victim is a lot more important than the criminal. This is the way it should be.

I would also think the victim might be the subject because the identity of the perpetrator is generally (is it? I don't know the crime/arrest statistics) unknown.

I agree that the victim would naturally be the subject. I guess it depends on the way you react mentally too. If your first reaction is to feel sorry for the victim, you'd feel sorry for her having been raped, and you'd focus on that fact: she was raped and you feel sorry. If your first reaction is to hate the perpetrator for raping her, you'd focus more on that fact: he raped her and you hate him for it.

I don't think hate solves a lot and my reaction would be compassionate rather than vengeful.

Not like anyone talking about the rapist is a hater. Just how I would think the phrases are best used.

This conversation finds perfect expression in CNN's thoughtless, stupid tweet earlier today:
"3 Muslims shot to death in Chapel Hill, NYC. Did faith play a role in their killing"
Observe the difference between this and a tweet framed thus:
"3 Muslims shot to death in Chapel Hill, NYC. Did anti-Muslim bigotry play a role in their killing"

Good find and example.

I like the thought in this thread btw. No time to read the article anytime soon, but I probably agree fully.

Like said earlier, the Michael Brown case is an AWFUL example. He got shot trying to take an officers gun and had just robbed a store. Nothing to do with blackness.

@Chaqa, is there any example of bigotry in tue behaviour of police towards non-white communities in your mind?

He is talking about a specific case. A man tried to disarm a police officer. The police officer shot him.

That doesn't answer my question, KC.