The Washington Post is reporting that Federal emergency-response staffers in hard-hit Rutherford County, North Carolina were directed on Saturday to stop working and move to a different area due to concerns about “armed militia” members on the prowl...
Hurricane recovery officials in N.C. relocated amid report of ‘armed militia… out hunting FEMA.’
I mean, sure, hate whatever media outlet you wish.
You don’t have to believe what they report, and you don’t have to even bother with reading with what they report, but you offered your thoughts without reading the article, not me.
Best to move on without commenting, or even attempting inferences based on the photo or headline in that circumstance, isn’t it? Otherwise you risk misunderstanding, falling victim to misinformation, or even creating your own misinformation.
I wonder if anyone read your comment, and skipped the article with the assumption that ‘liberal’ news outlets are manufacturing reports of anti-FEMA sentiment.
Well, at least if they don’t also read the article, they’ll know why there’s snow in the photo - assuming they read my initial reply comment. At least there’s that!
Ironically the photo is misinformation, or just clickbait. It depicts a group from Wyoming who was opposed to the reintroduction of wolves, not the people hunting FEMA. They grabbed a random scary looking picture and used it for their article.
I’m not sure if I agree about misinformation, but the photo is definitely clickbait. However, highlighting that it’s clickbait, and - as you’ve done - offering context about the real story of the photo (which I didn’t know) is, well, great. It identifies the issue without leaving it up to question as to what the issue is.
And that’s where you differ from the other commenter. They left things pretty darn vague, and I didn’t like the impression they seemed to be building toward - especially as their comment ended with a statement that I took to mean that they were justifying violence against FEMA workers, right after expressing doubt for the validity of the photo.
Which is well-placed doubt, but I mean - read the article, which explains things, don’t just assume and make ill-informed comments. When I make a mistake, I just shrug and go “Ah, crap, you’re right” rather than double down and go ‘Well, I’ll never read anything from the publisher anyway[, even though I’ll spend time and effort commenting on it]!’
What I took from their comments is that they’re alt-right and they’ve been told to hate FEMA, so they hate FEMA. There’s not really any reason to continue talking to someone who only has opinions they’re told to have, and dismisses any other information.
I didn’t say anything like what you represented me to have said, but nice strawman. Left media isn’t manufacturing reports of anti-FEMA sentiment. Right media has been manufacturing anti-FEMA sentiment ever since FEMA botched the Katrina response in 100 different ways. Confusion, blocking relief supplies, illegally seizing legally owned weapons. There are whole webpages dedicated to exposing and defunding FEMA.
I mean, sure, hate whatever media outlet you wish.
You don’t have to believe what they report, and you don’t have to even bother with reading with what they report, but you offered your thoughts without reading the article, not me.
Best to move on without commenting, or even attempting inferences based on the photo or headline in that circumstance, isn’t it? Otherwise you risk misunderstanding, falling victim to misinformation, or even creating your own misinformation.
I wonder if anyone read your comment, and skipped the article with the assumption that ‘liberal’ news outlets are manufacturing reports of anti-FEMA sentiment.
Well, at least if they don’t also read the article, they’ll know why there’s snow in the photo - assuming they read my initial reply comment. At least there’s that!
Ironically the photo is misinformation, or just clickbait. It depicts a group from Wyoming who was opposed to the reintroduction of wolves, not the people hunting FEMA. They grabbed a random scary looking picture and used it for their article.
I’m not sure if I agree about misinformation, but the photo is definitely clickbait. However, highlighting that it’s clickbait, and - as you’ve done - offering context about the real story of the photo (which I didn’t know) is, well, great. It identifies the issue without leaving it up to question as to what the issue is.
And that’s where you differ from the other commenter. They left things pretty darn vague, and I didn’t like the impression they seemed to be building toward - especially as their comment ended with a statement that I took to mean that they were justifying violence against FEMA workers, right after expressing doubt for the validity of the photo.
Which is well-placed doubt, but I mean - read the article, which explains things, don’t just assume and make ill-informed comments. When I make a mistake, I just shrug and go “Ah, crap, you’re right” rather than double down and go ‘Well, I’ll never read anything from the publisher anyway[, even though I’ll spend time and effort commenting on it]!’
What I took from their comments is that they’re alt-right and they’ve been told to hate FEMA, so they hate FEMA. There’s not really any reason to continue talking to someone who only has opinions they’re told to have, and dismisses any other information.
I didn’t say anything like what you represented me to have said, but nice strawman. Left media isn’t manufacturing reports of anti-FEMA sentiment. Right media has been manufacturing anti-FEMA sentiment ever since FEMA botched the Katrina response in 100 different ways. Confusion, blocking relief supplies, illegally seizing legally owned weapons. There are whole webpages dedicated to exposing and defunding FEMA.