4 ms·
I'm not claiming the story is fake, or that none of what was reported actually transpired. But rather, I sense that the reporters are ideologically motivated an
by BitwiseFool 5y ago
I'm not claiming the story is fake, or that none of what was reported actually transpired. But rather, I sense that the reporters are ideologically motivated and what they have presented here is not "the whole truth", to haphazardly borrow a term.
One of the reasons why I say this is because there absolutely was a coordinated effort to stymie the construction of the border wall and one of the proposed tactics was to use the EPA and threatened species as a foil to prevent it's construction. Cards Against Humanity employed a similar strategy: "It was revealed that the creators had purchased vacant land along the wall and "retained a law firm specializing in eminent domain to make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for the wall to get built." So in that sense, this isn't some unique stochastic attack on the noble butterfly center. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cards_Against_Humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cards_Against_Humanity)
But going back to my sense that something isn't quite right, the laundry list of associations is what stood out: Bringing up QAnon, bringing up Pizzagate, bringing up Steve Bannon, and bringing up anti-maskers. If I was a propagandist, I would end up writing a story just like this. Especially because you can report that wonderful institutions like National Butterfly Center and The Children’s Museum of Denver are victims of all of the above groups. Again, not to dismiss the story entirely, but it seems to hit all the right notes.
- duxup 5y ago>I'm not claiming the story is fake, I think then it fulfills the role I intended, as actual consequences of misinformation. >Bringing up QAnon.... That seems like dangerous amounts of cover for any topic where bringing them up is automatically discounted.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"I think then it fulfills the role I intended, as actual consequences of misinformation." How so? I am skeptical, but what actual negative consequences have resulted from this? >"That seems like dangerous amounts of cover for any topic where bringing them up is automatically discounted." Do you likewise feel the urge discount any story that brings up Antifa? I do. It is because in the minds of most partisans they loom larger than their real life impact. While QAnons and Antifa are completely different, they are utilized as boogeymen by ideologically motivated reporters. Still, the mention of these two groups only serve to raise my skepticism level rather than make me outright deny everything around their mention.