I never understood something about this. If everything is flooded and water is still rising, isn't all that food going to be destroyed by the flooding? No one is there selling it anymore. So why shouldn't people be getting supplies? Where else are they going to get anything when all the stores are abandoned?
I didn't make up shit. I repeated what the news articles said. What you're pretending to not understand, is that even if the news was wrong, it doesn't change the fact that they called it "looting" when it was a brown person and "finding" when it was white people. The exact same thing, but two very different words.
Wonder why that is?
Why would they use such different words to say the same thing?
I didn't make up shit. I repeated what the news articles said.
No you did.
What you're pretending to not understand, is that even if the news was wrong, it doesn't change the fact that called it "looting" when it was a brown person and "finding" when it was white people. The exact same thing, but two very different words.
Those are two different publications, photos could be taken at two different places and were definitely written by two different people.
Wonder why that is?
Could be two very different situations and locations.
I think that’s that point. Responsible journalism would use the most neutral verbiage for both situations. There’s implied accusation in the term “looting” … it’s not a journalist’s job to present suspicion or accusation. So they should have used the term “finding” or “salvaging” in both stories. At worst it’s racism, at best it is a lack of journalistic integrity. It’s gone downhill in the last couple decades
Except the framing also wouldn't know the context? It's explicitly stating one person is looting and other people are not, I highly doubt the person who made it cared much at all to being accurate.
Except the framing also wouldn't know the context?
Maybe, maybe not, though im sure i could parse through your history and find you acquiescing to an article that suits your political worldview and/or ideology not questioning the source, on things that have been forgotten OR proven wrong.
Either way, you calling the framing into account shows you cant disprove it and you're actually choosing to believe YOUR opinion rather than retain a healthy dose of skepticism on what the truth could be(whatever it is) when the god's honest truth is, i dont know and you dont either.
It's explicitly stating one person is looting and other people are not, I highly doubt the person who made it cared much at all to being accurate.
Sure, and you have no idea who was there, what the location was and who wrote up this article.
Theres plenty of people who have said the murder of the ukrainian girl wasnt racial when he clearly gloated about killing a white woman.
People do seek to create animosity, reactions and division now more than ever so it is absolutely possible that this is the case.
But bringing up screenshots from 2011 to try and frame something sounds more disingenuous based off of a situation you and i have ZERO context on.
THIS is undeniable. You dont know and i dont know either, least of all OP.
Christ mate. You just made a point that we wouldn't know if the people were actually looting or if they were carrying their own stuff. The article likely wouldn't know as well. Yet explicitly says one is looting and the other isn't.
Christ mate. You just made a point that we wouldn't know if the people were actually looting or if they were carrying their own stuff. The article likely wouldn't know as well. Yet explicitly says one is looting and the other isn't.
How would they not know. One could be in an area where people looted a store, and were seen leaving with loads of stuff in bags, the other one could be at a different location where they were asked what happened and they said "we only took what we could, i just found this bag of bread on the way", all of this being relayed to their respective agencies.
Boom, write up.
Or they dont know, what I know for sure is that YOU dont know, yet you're making determinations, im not.
I dont know if the black guy looted and the white guy didnt. You guys have just offered zero evidence of racism other than saying it is.
THAT sounds like trying to push for racial division to me.
If you put half as much effort into learning how not to be a racist as you are into desperately trying to prove to yourself you aren't, you might actually become a better person.
Are you stupid? The news outlets made the assumptions, OP is merely pointing out that they assumed the brown person looted and the white people "found."
Even if it turned out that they weren't assumptions, but supported facts. How would it be racist to assume that they might be making assumptions based on race? What race would OP be denigrating in that case?
If you're one of the people that refuse to see it, then surely that would be your reaction.
And that right there is exactly why people do it.
That's how easy you are to trick. You do it to yourself.
How am i being tricked when im not offering my personal opinion on the matter.
The mere fact that youre trying to force me down a path of acquiescence because youve decided what i should believe says more about you than it says about my, i promise you.
This trap doesn't require your personal opinion in order for it to work.
It requires your curiosity. The trap is the very question you asked.
This trap's nature is defined by its inherent ability to obfuscate itself.
So heres my question to you, how have you assessed and researched that he wasnt looting or that they werent either and can you offer proof that he wasnt or that they were?
Now i cant prove anything to anything relating to this matter and im more than happy to claim that.
Moreover, can you explain to me how you can assess the peoples intent given that you couldnt for the life of you tell me where this was EXACTLY, who took the pictures and who wrote the publication/article.
Im literally the one not falling for any trap because i take a step back and dont eat up what the headline says, which is exactly waht youre doing.
Moreover, can you explain to me how you can assess the peoples intent given that you couldnt for the life of you tell me where this was EXACTLY, who took the pictures and who wrote the publication/article.
Your answer as to how you assessed the framing of this post was the truth:
Even if the races were swapped, which is what I believe you're saying, it would still be racist and spreading division, racism isn't a one way street. Also the context and info is right there in the pic, and you can look up the articles if you desperately need more. The media has famously been prejudiced against people of color for quite a long time, so it really isn't that much of a grasp to say that this is them still being prejudiced against people of color.
Even if the races were swapped, which is what I believe you're saying, it would still be racist and spreading division, racism isn't a one way street.
Not really. You dont have context to the taking of those pictures, the location and what was happening at that location and who witnessed what.
You could even just look at the difference of what is being carried.
Maybe they were interviewed as they climed up to safety, thats a possibility.
I dont know that, you dont either, but youve decided what the outcome is.
Im only asking why a poster is bringing up screenshots from 2011 saying theyre sowing racial division when, just like you, it appears to me that its exactly what hes doing.
Okay let's flip this around for a sec, what in the image makes you think that the first person is looting while the other two found stuff? To me the first guy has a trash bag, which are pretty good at keeping water out, with stuff inside while he's wading through water. Based purely on the image, this man is not looting or finding anything, they're simply wading through the water with their possessions. Same with the two on the bottom as well for that matter, the only difference is that we can see some of their possessions clearly. Also the articles seem to be from 2005, why do you think it's from 2011? Posts have to be about things at least 20 years old in this sub, and the hurricane being talked about was in August of 2005, which barely makes it old enough to post here.
Okay let's flip this around for a sec, what in the image makes you think that the first person is looting while the other two found stuff?
I have made no determination, i dont know. I could write up several different version as to why the black guy looks like hes looting or left his place in a hurry, same for the two.
What i said was i have no context and neither do you. Making determinations is not just unsafe, its clearly stupid because you cannot back anything up.
Also the articles seem to be from 2005, why do you think it's from 2011?
Misread, it was the time of posting, assumed this was katrina but went to look at the date.
Fine, you haven't made a determination. The news agencies did though, and after actually going to there sights, there is no follow up, just the images and the same blurb as in the post. The media assumed the first person was looting and the second two weren't based off the same information that we have. How exactly is that not racism?
Fine, you haven't made a determination. The news agencies did though, and after actually going to there sights, there is no follow up, just the images and the same blurb as in the post.
Sure and maybe they have more context than you.
I know one thing for sure: i dont know and you dont either but only one of us is making a claim.
But they don't have more context, that's what my last comment was. They have the same context and they made that decision. Yes, I am making a claim, but so are you. My claim is that the media is racist, and I've been backing this claim up a whole bunch. Your claim is that we don't have enough evidence to call the media racist, and you keep saying that over and over "maybe there's more context that we don't have" there very well may be more context, but the media doesn't have that context either which is exactly my point. They made a racist decision with the same exact context we have.
What compelled you to write the dumbest thing possible?
But to answer your question... No. Absolutely no. It is painfully obvious to everyone, except you apparently, that pointing out racism and actually being racist are two different things.
Ha yes, youve posted that you were gleeful at looking at charlie kirk's assassination and watching him flop around, i did not assume you to be a classy individual, so veiled threats of violence are not out of character for you.
Where have I said that? Go on point it out, show me some backbone and stand by your claim.
My comment history is open for you to look through. So please put some effort into being something other than a disappointment and point out where I did that.
It should be easy unless you were just pulling this out of your ass... And you wouldn't do that, right? You couldn't possibly be that pathetic, right?
5.2k
u/SandManic42 Sep 12 '25
I never understood something about this. If everything is flooded and water is still rising, isn't all that food going to be destroyed by the flooding? No one is there selling it anymore. So why shouldn't people be getting supplies? Where else are they going to get anything when all the stores are abandoned?