3 ms·
Don't really agree. I feel pretty safe in saying there's a general negative connotation when the words "Feds" and "raid" are present in the same sentence. It
by davesque 11y ago
Don't really agree. I feel pretty safe in saying there's a general negative connotation when the words "Feds" and "raid" are present in the same sentence. It may be true that the words themselves don't necessarily mean anything negative, but I bet most people would agree that the tone of the words is negative sounding.
- derefr 11y agoI think the words default to having a negative emotional valence of the object of the sentence is a person, but a positive valence if the object is a company. Feds raid widow's apartment → obviously bad Feds raid Exxon offices → obviously good ...which is kind of fascinating for what it implies. It seems to me, personally, that raids against companies are almost always well-researched before being executed, to the point of basically never being even slightly ethically ambiguous. Whereas raids against individuals seem to be almost always ethically ambiguous, and often entirely inexplicable. Then again, the "Feds" in those two cases are two different groups: it's mostly the SEC that raids companies, while it's mostly the DEA that raids individuals. This might explain a lot of the difference in attitude.
- lostlogin 11y agoIll offer the NZ police/FBI/Hollywood raid on Dotcom up as a counter example. Numerous laws violated which even a basic summary for facts would have caught. Then again, the Feds got what they wanted while the suckers and idiots down here were left to sort out their mess.