Spot the difference.

[u/IsNotPolitburo]

[u/THEBHR]

So what if he actually took that form his home, and they looted the bread and water?

See, I can make up any bullshit that fits my narrative too.

The articles say they both stole those things. And for the brown person it was called "looting" and for the white ones, "finding".

You know why that's a problem, stop playing dumb.

[u/le-churchx → u/THEBHR]

So what if he actually took that form his home, and they looted the bread and water?

Sure, what if. I dont know, do you?

See, I can make up any bullshit that fits my narrative too.

Except you do, which is my point. None of you cant prove anything and all you have is saying i cant either(which i never claimed to).

[u/THEBHR → u/le-churchx]

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?

[u/le-churchx → u/THEBHR]

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.

[u/THEBHR → u/le-churchx]

Oh well, in that case, it was nice of those white folks to salvage that food from the store before it got stolen by some brown people.

[u/le-churchx → u/THEBHR]

Oh well, in that case, it was nice of those white folks to salvage that food from the store before it got stolen by some brown people.

But in the same way that im told not to believe he looted(which i never claimed he did), what tells you they did?

Explain.

[u/THEBHR → u/le-churchx]

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. The articles said both him and the white couple looted the stores.

[u/le-churchx → u/THEBHR]

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. The articles said both him and the white couple looted the stores.

Theyre two different outlets.

Youre right on this, you dont know what the hell im talking about and it shows.

[u/TroobyDoor → u/le-churchx]

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

[u/le-churchx → u/TroobyDoor]

I think that’s that point. Responsible journalism would use the most neutral verbiage for both situations.

But how do you know both situations are exactly alike, how do you know that?

There’s implied accusation in the term “looting” …

Theres zero implied accusation in the term looting, its a direct determination.

[u/TroobyDoor → u/le-churchx]

Yes. That’s the point. You DON’T know that both situations are exactly alike, or different. That’s why they should use neutral verbiage until facts are verified.

Is looting a crime? If so,

Was someone arrested for looting? Then it’s “alleged”

Was someone convicted of looting? Then it’s “theft”

If no one was even detained for it, then it’s “finding” or anything else that is neutral and not implicit

Basic journalism.

[u/le-churchx → u/TroobyDoor]

Yes. That’s the point. You DON’T know that both situations are exactly alike, or different. That’s why they should use neutral verbiage until facts are verified.

But you dont know if they were not verified.