Making Staff up While Black

[Puppycow]

I haven't read either article but I do think that there's a lot of fake news that calls itself "satire" but doesn't always read as such. Just my two cents. Such sites tend to have their stories go "viral" when casual Facebook users mistake them for news reports.

I wouldn't put the Babylon Bee in that category but I don't think it's nearly as good as The Onion.

 

[applecorped]

It's a fact checking site.

 

[dann]

Satire that people mistake to be true is worth addressing, no?

Definitely. When the alt-rights get poe'd by an Onion (or Bee) article or any other piece of satire and turn its (apparent) claims into an urban myth, it's obvious that it's something that Snopes should factcheck. (And it probably doesn't require much effort if the source is as easy to find as an Onion article.)

 

[plague311]

Definitely. When the alt-rights get poe'd by an Onion (or Bee) article or any other piece of satire and turn its (apparent) claims into an urban myth, it's obvious that it's something that Snopes should factcheck. (And it probably doesn't require much effort if the source is as easy to find as an Onion article.)

Didn't a cop just get tricked by some 'satire' that caused him to imply that someone should shoot AOC?

 

[Ziggurat]

Definitely. When the alt-rights get poe'd by an Onion (or Bee) article or any other piece of satire and turn its (apparent) claims into an urban myth, it's obvious that it's something that Snopes should factcheck. (And it probably doesn't require much effort if the source is as easy to find as an Onion article.)

Is the New York Times "alt-right"?

 

[CORed]

It would be extremely strange for a Cuban to tell someone to go back to their country. I don't really know where I stand on this, but that would be a bit ironic. He also seems pretty adamant about not saying that even going so far as to say he's exploring a defamation suit. Thomas and her lawyer have also implied that they are asking witnesses (of which there appear to be 4, though 1 doesn't remember hearing those words) to get ready to testify.

Both seem confident, but I would almost bet that after a week or so this will fade into the background and no one will hear about it again.

There is apparently no audio recording of what was said, so it's kind of a he said, she said. It's hard to tell what the truth is. I did read in the linked article that when the guy complained, there were two regular checkout lanes with no wait, so it seems to me to be kind of rude to make an issue of it (but also to use the express lane with more items than allowed). At this point, it kind of looks like a slap fight between two annoying people.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is apparently no audio recording of what was said, so it's kind of a he said, she said.

Not quite. There have been published accounts from third party witnesses who come much closer to his account than hers.

At this point, it kind of looks like a slap fight between two annoying people.

Quite likely, most slap fights are. But only one participant decided to try to turn it into a national story.

 

[CORed]

She is also crystal clear that she did not hear those words spoken by Sparkes.

Sparkes was seen leaving and being followed by Thomas who was venting "go back where you come from". I'd bet my house she's lying, but that's simply my take.

One of our lamented ex-contributors would have termed her a "grifter".



By virtue of the fact that a "rule" (policy) is posted up then one can be expected to adhere to it, however mundane, for the greater good of all. It's called acting for the benefit of many and not the benefit of one.

The fact that there were other empty lanes muddies things somewhat. Why did she chose this one lane (controversially) when other lanes would have presented her with a blame free solution?

If one decides to ignore the "rule" (policy) then one can expect to be called on to account for ones actions.

The fact that there were other empty lanes also raises the question of why Sparkes would be bothered to complain about her taking too many items through the express lane, when it affected his wait time not at all. As I said in my previous post, it seems like we are dealing with two obnoxious idiots here.

 

[CORed]

Not quite. There have been published accounts from third party witnesses who come much closer to his account than hers.



Quite likely, most slap fights are. But only one participant decided to try to turn it into a national story.

So, we have one idiot who starts a confrontation over too many items through the express lane when it cause him no harm at all, and another who plays the race card and (probably) falsely accuses him of bigotry. If this is really how it went down, I suppose she "wins" the stupid prize for playing her stupid game. IMO, neither of them look very good in this.

 

[theprestige]

So, we have one idiot who starts a confrontation over too many items through the express lane when it cause him no harm at all, and another who plays the race card and (probably) falsely accuses him of bigotry. If this is really how it went down, I suppose she "wins" the stupid prize for playing her stupid game. IMO, neither of them look very good in this.

On the other hand, expressing frustration in the moment at someone violating a social norm is way more understandable and forgivable than her retaliation.

 

[Cavemonster]

On the other hand, expressing frustration in the moment at someone violating a social norm is way more understandable and forgivable than her retaliation.

1) 10 items or less isn't a social norm, it's a store policy for the purpose of keeping wait times low for people with a few items. I guess adhering to store policies is sort of a social norm, but to the extent that no one had to wait behind her, this wasn't a social interaction.

2) In the moment might have been if he said something while he walked by her. He checked out his groceries, went to the help desk, had a conversation there, walked back to accost her. This was a deliberate action that he made a decision to undertake.

3) Calling someone who isn't harming anyone a "Lazy bitch" isn't merely expressing frustration, it's violating a much stronger social norm than having a few extra items in this context could ever be.

Your sophistry doesn't work when pretty much every facet of it is BS.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, we have one idiot who starts a confrontation over too many items through the express lane when it cause him no harm at all, and another who plays the race card and (probably) falsely accuses him of bigotry. If this is really how it went down, I suppose she "wins" the stupid prize for playing her stupid game. IMO, neither of them look very good in this.

Sure.

The larger problem, though, is with the general willingness to make isolated acts of stupidity into headlines. No matter which version you believe, this shouldn't have been a national story, at all. Nobody but the actual witnesses should even know it happened.

It's like we're living in a panopticon. But the watcher has Emily Litella-like eyesight.

 

[dann]

Is the New York Times "alt-right"?

What does your link say?!
I've seen right-wing articles in the NYT.

 

[plague311]

1) 10 items or less isn't a social norm, it's a store policy for the purpose of keeping wait times low for people with a few items. I guess adhering to store policies is sort of a social norm, but to the extent that no one had to wait behind her, this wasn't a social interaction.

2) In the moment might have been if he said something while he walked by her. He checked out his groceries, went to the help desk, had a conversation there, walked back to accost her. This was a deliberate action that he made a decision to undertake.

3) Calling someone who isn't harming anyone a "Lazy bitch" isn't merely expressing frustration, it's violating a much stronger social norm than having a few extra items in this context could ever be.

Your sophistry doesn't work when pretty much every facet of it is BS.

Pretty much this. This entire thing is pretty much the definition of pettiness all around.

Who even pays attention to lines they aren't waiting in or even intend to wait in? On the flip, who tries to get attention over something so stupid?

So stupid.

 

[theprestige]

Frustrated shopper gets dragged into a public spectacle by a racist piece of ****.

"Oh, hum, well, nobody in this story comes out looking very good."

 

[Cavemonster]

Frustrated shopper gets dragged into a public spectacle by a racist piece of ****.

"Oh, hum, well, nobody in this story comes out looking very good."

These misrepresentations have been addressed. Repeating them does not accomplish anything.

 

[plague311]

Frustrated shopper gets dragged into a public spectacle by a racist piece of ****.

"Oh, hum, well, nobody in this story comes out looking very good."

Dood, he ******* instigated it! What was he frustrated at? That a person in a line he wasn't in, that didn't effect him at all, did something that no one else gave a **** about, threw a temper tantrum and called her names?

What do you want people to get up in arms about? Everyone has said she looks like a moron, which she does. He, also, looks like a moron. They're morons. Are you pissed that people aren't swearing about her checking out with 15 ******* items? Who gives a ******

 

[Ziggurat]

What does your link say?!
I've seen right-wing articles in the NYT.

alt-right is not synonymous with right-wing. And follow the link if you're curious. You won't get a virus, I promise. You won't get right-wing cooties either.

 

[Checkmite]

How many people?

It doesn't matter. Snopes' MO is to fact check claims when enough people have pinged their inbox asking if such-and-such as written here-and-there is true or not.

This:

The Babylon Bee has managed to fool readers with its brand of satire in the past. This particular story was especially confusing for some readers, however, as it closely mirrored the events of a genuine news story, with the exception of the website’s changing the location from “Publix” to the more controversial Chick-Fil-A.

...is a perfectly legitimate reason to extend their remarks beyond a simple "it's satire, end of story". The only "beclowning" in evidence is yours, for this bizarrely rabid set against Snopes'....I don't even know. What you perceive to be their "tone", apparently?....in their otherwise completely accurate fact-check.

 

[dann]

Exactly! When an article appears in The Onion or in The Babylon Bee, that is not a reason for Snopes to fact check it. However, when their stories begin to circulate online as memes because right-wing idiots think they are true or want others to think they are, that's when it becomes expedient to fact check them.
It probably won't be long because this bit of childish 'satire' is considered a fact by alt-right idiots: Ocasio-Cortez Appears On 'The Price Is Right,' Guesses Everything Is Freehttps://babylonbee.com/news/ocasio-cortez-appears-on-price-is-right-guesses-everything-is-free

AOC wants health care for all and a minimum wage that people can actually survive on, but she is so dumb that she doesn't understand that these things have to be paid for, so let's pretend that she never told us how she proposes that they are to be paid for.
You actually have to be stupid enough to believe that, in order to find the 'joke' funny!! That's how dumb the 'satire' at The Babylon Bee is. Circulating it on social media, that's how dumb right-wingers are.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ocasio-cortez-price-is-right/

ETA: https://imgflip.com/i/2yjzm8