The so-called liberal media is at it again, referring to an unarmed teen as an “unarmed teen.” And referring to a teenager who is unarmed as “unarmed” is reverse racism. Or something.
via Media Matters
A Fox News segment asked whether the “unarmed teen” description of Michael Brown is misleading and featured Fox contributor Linda Chavez arguing that such a description enhances racial fears and is an attempt to play the “race card.”
On August 25, Chavez and Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy aired surveillance footage from the convenience store that Michael Brown allegedly robbed before his death, and used this to argue that describing Brown as an “unarmed teen” at the time of the shooting is misleading. [...]
During the segment on Fox, on-screen text asked if the “unarmed teen” description of Michael Brown was misleading while Chavez argued that Brown was an adult male “who is six foot four and weighs almost three hundred pounds”
If words still have meaning, referring to a teenager who does not possess a weapon as an “unarmed teen” is entirely accurate.
If anyone is “playing the race card” it would be those who are implying that Michael Brown was armed with his bare hands. Because as long as we aren’t kidding ourselves, you know Fox News wouldn’t split hairs if an unarmed white teenager was referred to as an “unarmed teen.” And neither would most people because, for those who reside in empirical reality, words do still have meaning.
To say that Michael Brown was a big scary black man and that he wasn’t unarmed because he was armed with big black scariness is conclusively racist. Among other things.
If you’ve been on the fence about this issue, this should give you pause because apparently being unarmed while black is the same thing as being armed while black. And if black people are treated as if they’re armed at all times, even when they aren’t — they don’t stand a chance.