3 ms·

She can be both, she will become lots of things over time depending on agenda. Her background was decidedly under-reported, for a few justifications, including

by steele 9mo ago

She can be both, she will become lots of things over time depending on agenda. Her background was decidedly under-reported, for a few justifications, including preventing a preferred audience from sympathizing with the victim. Not sure what your point is other than volume of information available increases over time.

iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
You do have a point. My point is that we are constantly a part of informational warfare and it is getting old. I would love nothing more than people to look at it all with a cold eye and say something akin to: oh, I recognize this pattern. Instead, I attempts of various power centers to frame it in a way beneficial to them. Some of us are rather tired of this.
- SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
  But why is your own framing exempt from the analysis? The idea that you should see a murder and "look at it all with a cold eye", to try and dispassionately understand whether it might have been justified, is a non-obvious idea that's quite advantageous to power centers that expect to be shooting people frequently.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
    Am I suggesting that you do not do it? Hardly. That said, I am simply not buying my newly assigned martyr.
    - SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
      Again, this concept of "newly assigned martyr" you have is not something that fell from heaven fully formed. It was shaped and given to you by what you call "power centers" - ones which are currently running the United States government! - because they think this framing is beneficial to them. I'm going to stop the conversation here before I start coming up with unwise insults, because it's just infuriating that you can't turn this critical eye on yourself and the informational warfare you're subject to.
      - iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
        Who says I can't? In any event, before you go, why, exactly, is it infuriating?
        SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
        What's infuriating is that you are acting as an agent of the government, defending their murder of a random citizen, but perceive yourself and frame yourself as a dispassionate observer who's interested in the media dynamics of how different descriptors get attached to people. I don't know if you started off like this, or if you're so deep in DHS propaganda that you can't find your way out, and right now I don't care to find out.
        iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
        The difference between us that I know exactly what ( and even why ) I advocate for: keeping the system stable. << random citizen She was a not some random citizen; I would have been addressing it differently if that was the case. Now, if you have a stomach for it, we can go over what kind of citizen she was.
        goatlover 9mo ago
        Sounds like, "What kind of American are you?" from the Jesse Plemmons character in the Alex Garland Civil War movie. Shouldn't the fact that ICE shot a woman trying to leave the scene be enough?
        iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
        << Sounds like, "What kind of American are you?" from the Jesse Plemmons character in the Alex Garland Civil War movie. You see what you want to see, which is kinda revealing if you ask me. << Shouldn't the fact that ICE shot a woman trying to leave the scene be enough? No. It is not enough. Reasonable person would be unlikely to find themselves in that position, which begs a simple question: What was her reason for being there? If you can answer that, we can start having a conversation. Until then, she is not some rando at the wrong place at the wrong time.
- 8note 9mo ago
  its not some pattern of abuse by shady actors manipulating opinions youre noticing, its voting algorithm and attention economy itself. new ideas are constantly being published, and popular ones gain momentum by being shown to more people. as the idea gets saturated, the popularity gets overshadowed by the time based downranking. if the idea is still popular though, in this case that ice murdered some woman as part of their shock and awe campaign, variations are going to show up such as "legal observer" and "mother of a three year old"
  - iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
    [flagged]

by steele 9mo ago

iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago

You do have a point. My point is that we are constantly a part of informational warfare and it is getting old. I would love nothing more than people to look at it all with a cold eye and say something akin to: oh, I recognize this pattern. Instead, I attempts of various power centers to frame it in a way beneficial to them. Some of us are rather tired of this.

SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
But why is your own framing exempt from the analysis? The idea that you should see a murder and "look at it all with a cold eye", to try and dispassionately understand whether it might have been justified, is a non-obvious idea that's quite advantageous to power centers that expect to be shooting people frequently.
- iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
  Am I suggesting that you do not do it? Hardly. That said, I am simply not buying my newly assigned martyr.
  - SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
    Again, this concept of "newly assigned martyr" you have is not something that fell from heaven fully formed. It was shaped and given to you by what you call "power centers" - ones which are currently running the United States government! - because they think this framing is beneficial to them. I'm going to stop the conversation here before I start coming up with unwise insults, because it's just infuriating that you can't turn this critical eye on yourself and the informational warfare you're subject to.
    - iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
      Who says I can't? In any event, before you go, why, exactly, is it infuriating?
      - SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
        What's infuriating is that you are acting as an agent of the government, defending their murder of a random citizen, but perceive yourself and frame yourself as a dispassionate observer who's interested in the media dynamics of how different descriptors get attached to people. I don't know if you started off like this, or if you're so deep in DHS propaganda that you can't find your way out, and right now I don't care to find out.
        iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
        The difference between us that I know exactly what ( and even why ) I advocate for: keeping the system stable. << random citizen She was a not some random citizen; I would have been addressing it differently if that was the case. Now, if you have a stomach for it, we can go over what kind of citizen she was.
        goatlover 9mo ago
        Sounds like, "What kind of American are you?" from the Jesse Plemmons character in the Alex Garland Civil War movie. Shouldn't the fact that ICE shot a woman trying to leave the scene be enough?
        iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
        << Sounds like, "What kind of American are you?" from the Jesse Plemmons character in the Alex Garland Civil War movie. You see what you want to see, which is kinda revealing if you ask me. << Shouldn't the fact that ICE shot a woman trying to leave the scene be enough? No. It is not enough. Reasonable person would be unlikely to find themselves in that position, which begs a simple question: What was her reason for being there? If you can answer that, we can start having a conversation. Until then, she is not some rando at the wrong place at the wrong time.
8note 9mo ago
its not some pattern of abuse by shady actors manipulating opinions youre noticing, its voting algorithm and attention economy itself. new ideas are constantly being published, and popular ones gain momentum by being shown to more people. as the idea gets saturated, the popularity gets overshadowed by the time based downranking. if the idea is still popular though, in this case that ice murdered some woman as part of their shock and awe campaign, variations are going to show up such as "legal observer" and "mother of a three year old"
- iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
  [flagged]