Yeah, I don't see how he's going to successfully argue that he didn't say the thing his title says, and when he explicitly causally connects the two phenomenons in question.

Oh come on, man.

Fair enough. I don't know that just dropping the word white will stop them, since they'll just think it was THOSE white people not them, but maybe there's an effect.

As I said in reply to someone else, I do think that last part speaks to something interesting and maybe it just comes down to unconscious psychological markers. I just don't find your first sentence to be a plausible way that any non-mentally-deficient American adult could read it.

Maybe I'm just giving readers too much credit for not being idiots.

What on earth... oh, I see you just made this account today. That makes sense.

Hmm. This juxtaposition is a good point, thank you for bringing it up.

If you say so. I really don't think anyone at NYT was omitting the word "white" here to spare feelings. The idea that it was done as "polite assertion" rather than "because duh and word economy" is weird to me. No one of sound mind reads that and doesn't immediately realize white people did it.

I guess maybe saying it out loud matters, but is not doing so really "glossing over" anything for the sake of their feelings? Is that really what we think the Times is doing? That they were gonna say white, and then decided "hmmm...better not..."?

As you alluded to, isn't it obvious? If I say to you that it is raining, I don't need to say "from the sky." It's implied, and is "duh" territory. You wouldn't say I failed to tell the "whole story" about where the rain came from.

You know she's brain dead, right? Like, totally brain dead?

Do people actually defend her tho?

"Obviously there must be violation here, otherwise the city government wouldn't have acted."

Pitchers are not using pine tar so as to avoid mansluaghter, you doofus. They're doing it to strike out more batters. That is the only reason.

This is not necessarily the case. One of the balls was the "K" ball, which is used only on kicking plays and might have had a different starting pressure.

"engaged to 19-year-old actor Aaron Johnson at 42"

I appreciate your commitment to this.

This is the whitest comment of all time. I'm impressed.

If everything is going to end up on Deadspin, why bother with verticals at all? They make sense when it's a some-but-not-all situation, but what advantage is gained by this sub-labeling?