this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
504 points (97.2% liked)
Actually Infuriating
310 readers
2949 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, ). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 2 days ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These are some of my favorite contributions to social networks. Thank you for taking the time.
I couldn't stop myself. It's too often that "something written in Impact font over a picture" is just accepted as fact. It's no wonder that propaganda "works so well." And this one isn't even that bad. It's substantially true, even.
Memes aren't journalism, and it's important to do the work of fact checking, especially when the meme is rage-bait and/or something you're already primed to agree with.
Yeah but didn't you just write a long ass explanation of how the posted "meme" is correct? Or can I not read.
For this specific case:
My comment above was meant to address my motivation for doing the work in the first place. There was a "picture with Impact font text" on it. That alone demands vetting. The fact that that vetting later showed that this image/text is substantially correct doesn't obviate the need for validating the information.
The errors are not major ones: Vinyard vs "Vineyard". Off-duty cop vs "plainclothes[ed] cop". Offering evidence to uniformed police vs "re[n]dering aid"/"saving lives". That last mistake - which is one that early reporting also made - tends to amplify the rage-bait aspect of the story. This is not to say that people shouldn't be incensed by the events that played out here. It is to say that the actual events that played out are what people should be incensed by.
Facts matter.
I agree facts matter and appreciate you vetting it and all that jazz. I tend to outright dismiss "picture with impact font text(s)" because of what you said.
I just thought for a sec you were saying that the pic was not really truthful, in general (if not specifically), so was confused for a minute. Keep up the good work comrade.