According To The Right Wing Conspiracy Factory, this picture is a hoax

For all we know he was going to take a picture of the three boys standing there, when they saw and heard the tear gas cannister hit and they started to turn to look at it. 

If that is a pose of people "fleeing" it is a very poor effort at fakery. He is only a couple feet away from the subjects. What kind of fleeing could this portray? 

As for the people "standing around", the tear gas fell about 100 feet away from most of them, and they simply hadn't noticed it yet. 

The boy "running toward" the camera?  Prove it. He could simply be running away from the tear gas. 

The thing about a picture like this is that anybody could make anything they want out of it. There will always be somebody that interprets it their way.

There is a reality to what the picture represents. Conspiracy theorists cant just make shit up on the basis that they have a right to. 

you have my sympathy

It is a hoax and has been dismissed by DHS and the Border Patrol, along with "reputable" news agencies.

link?

Read the FP - plenty of articles/threads with that information.

then that will make it easy for you to provide a link

snopes

Snopes says the photo is not a hoax.

Snopes says it wasnt staged.

Do any of you have any evidence it was staged, or just hopes?

Snipes huh. Well there's a unbiased reliable source. /S

Do you expect me to believe Gateway Pundit or any of the other crackpot lyin ass sites you guys rely on?

It is a hoax and has been dismissed by DHS and the Border Patrol, along with "reputable" news agencies.

There it is: proof positive that the photo is genuine.

Well there's a unbiased reliable source.

If you'd have left the /s off of the end of that sentence it might have been only the second time I've seen an accurate statement from you.  

Is that you Alex?

Hoaxed: The ‘Illegal Alien Mom with Barefoot Kids’ Photo was a Setup – Another Staged #FakeNews Production

by Jim Hoft November 26, 2018 732 Comments

• 20.5K Share
• 938 Tweet
• Email

Guest post by Joe Hoft

Yesterday’s Headline is today’s hoax. The illegal alien mother ‘fleeing’ from the border wall was all a lie. It was a setup.

After further review, yesterday’s ‘horrific’ picture of a woman with barefoot children running from the US border wall was a hoax. In the background of the picture a group of men are posing for one camera man and another is running towards another camera man. In other areas, people are just standing around. The woman with the children was just a photo-op

thegatewaypundit

Are we now allowed to post that source here? I have a hard time understanding what is banned around here. 

mediabiasfactcheck

My understanding is that Gateway Pundit cannot be used as a seed. 

Thanks it can be a bit confusing considering how the rule is defined in the COC.  It really doesn’t specify seed or comments. 

Fake News

Fake news will be determined using both Media Bias/Fact Check and Wikipedia. If a site is not on the main scale of Media Bias check and Wikipedia agrees with the assessment, the site is not allowed on the NewsTalkers

Fake News Fake news will be determined using both Media Bias/Fact Check and Wikipedia. If a site is not on the main scale of Media Bias check and Wikipedia agrees with the assessment, the site is not allowed on the NewsTalkers

So this means that MB/FC, a left-wing site ... plus Wikipedia, a site that academia discredited 20+ years ago because anyone can alter the info ... determine what is fake and factual. I wasn't aware of this.  Wow!

Still don't get it do you. The parents were warned repeatedly of the consequences- and yet chose to take their children into harms way. 

What you also leave out is that they simply weren't in the ditch before the fence- they were seeking a way past it. Just look at the upper right hand corner of the picture where they were massing at the fence. Also above the fleeing people at those at the razor wire.

The caravan has rejected repeated offers from Mexico for asylum. They have also not requested refugee status at any of the 13 US embassies in Mexico. Nor, are they looking for a legal port of entry into the US to apply for asylum.  They are not looking for legal entry. They are looking to cross the border and disappear into the US; and hoping they escape ICE notice.

This article is not about the migrants who want to enter the US. It is about the claim that the Reuters photographer staged a hoax picture of a mother and children running away from tear gas. I'll give you the one off topic comment. But any further will be removed. 

As to if the shots were faked or not- who cares? Some probably were, some weren't. Given the amount of press and cameras there it would be shocking if some weren't staged to make for a better story.

Were they illegally trying to cross the border? Were they warned well in advance of the consequences? Yes or no. These are simple answers.

Everything else is simply politically charged noise meant to divert attention away from the caravan's illegal action.

Still don't get it do you.

It's people like you who refuse to "get it."   The Scumbag criminal enterprise is violating US immigration law by trashing the right for people seeking asylum to have their cases heard in an orderly and expeditiously as possible.  Scumbag and fellow goons have strangled the process which has added yet another level of desperation for people trying to escape the horrors of drug-cartels in CA and the corrupt governments that are unwilling or unable (and probably in on the drug trade) to provide safety and the rule of law.  Considering the US is the biggest consumer of those drugs and has been propping up extreme right wing, corrupt and incompetent regimes in this area for over a century we are complicit as well.  

Was that taken during the Obama administration or Trump?

They both used tear gas to control the border, so it's hard to tell the difference.

off topic

wtf difference does it really make if the photo was staged or not?

Simple fact is, NO TEAR GAS WOULD have been used if illegal aliens didn't try to breach the border.

so the topic of discussion is  COULD the photo have been staged? never really know unless someone speaks up , but the injection of reasonable doubt changes the metric of the overall discussion.

Could it have been staged? of course it could have , why? to illicit a desired effect. does it mean that what is described or depicted didn't happen? of course not .

but that reasonable doubt will still remain and effect the metric of the story being given.

TJ is across the border from SD, home port to the navy and marines , and in close proximity to any number of training areas for those troops , so it is safe to assume that surplus military training aides are available on both sides of the border , through any number of means . We are told that it is a tear gas canister by those reporting in the picture, no reason to disbelieve them since it has already been admitted that CS was used . 

 here is the reasonable doubt , could it , IF the picture was staged also be a white smoke canister photographed before it started billowing the smoke screen?  I have used both smoke and cs in training , and for a short time , you cant really tell the difference just by appearance , not until the smoke really starts to generate and cover the area.

So I guess this discussion is a bit wider than intended and can encompass how people perceive things depending on what they are told.

Bias in the news media is a real thing and it comes from photojournalists, too. The picture is not the whole story. The photographer points at and focuses on the things he wants people to know about. He ignores the things he doesn't want people to know about. He may even intentionally avoid pictures of things he'd rather keep quiet. For example,

Kim recalled seeing two men try to dismantle the wire fence. U.S. officials say some threw rocks and bottles at border officers, who then fired tear gas to disperse the crowd.

So where is this guy's pictures of men dismantling the fence? Why isn't a picture of people throwing rocks and bottles at BP officers on the cover? Because the photographer and/or editor decided that was not the story they want to tell.

Look at the picture they did use, though. Yes, there is a woman and kids in the foreground. In the background there are a handful of women and a handful of kids, but probably 80%-90% of the background people are young men. But a crowd of young men doesn't fit the narrative that this is a migration of desperate women and children, so they aren't the focus.

They are also supposed to be running from teargas, but almost all of the people in the background are simply walking. And the teargas? There is one canister smoking nearby and the smoke is not blowing at anyone, including this woman and her kids. They probably don't need to be running at all.

So, I don't know how much the picture was staged, but I can see that the photographer is trying to tell a certain story that doesn't appear to be representative of the whole.

I wish I had a mom like is shown in the photo ! 

hoax photo? no. 

staged photo? yes

at least msnbc admitted they are mostly men

youtu.be

meanwhile back at the fakenews factory...

The thing that really has me scratching my head about the picture is that if this woman is really dragging 2 small children (diapers with no pants, one barefoot and one in flip flops mind you)  3000 miles across several countries wouldn't the better choice be to take Mexico's offer of asylum including food shelter and medical attention than to put the children through more suffering and taking a gamble of not getting asylum in the US?  

"If they close the border I ask God that here in Tijuana, or in another country they open doors to us, to allow me to survive with my children," said Meza.

Oh gosh, looks like everyone in the caravan but her got the offer from Mexico for amnesty./s

The other thing I can't help noticing is there is only one other woman and child I can see in the entire picture other than the ones that are the pictures focus.  Given the other reasons mentioned in the article and fact that we know the caravan is about 90% (probably more like 98% judging from this picture) young males, and the reason WHY the gas was used, there is room for doubt about the authenticity of the photo for sure.

BTW anyone else notice how big these diaper wearing kids are?   Is it normal in Honduras for kids to wear diapers until they are 5?

"The first thing I did was grab my children," said Meza. A photo of her clutching the hands of twin five-year-old daughters... voanews

The thing that really has me scratching my head about the picture is that if this woman is really dragging 2 small children (diapers with no pants, one barefoot and one in flip flops mind you)  3000 miles across several countries wouldn't the better choice be to take Mexico's offer of asylum including food shelter and medical attention than to put the children through more suffering and taking a gamble of not getting asylum in the US?  

Maria Meza, the woman in the WaPo article's photo, traveled alone from Honduras to the US border with FIVE children. Maybe she didn't understand Mexico's very generous offer of asylum when she illegally crossed Mexico's southern border?

She said that she was just standing at the border looking at the US when they were hit by tear gas. It's beyond my comprehension why she would further endanger her children by doing this, because there are dozens of media people and lawyers embedded in this caravan who are telling the migrants what is happening.

In an  interview  with Buzzfeed News, the woman, 39-year-old Maria Meza, said she and her five children were standing near the fence when border agents fired tear gas at them. She said she didn’t try to cross and was only looking across the border.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/26/how-photographer-captured-image-migrant-mother-her-children-fleeing-tear-gas/?utm_term=.bac1c49f3caa

Glad to see some of our conspiracy theorists showed up to offer approval to the conspiracy article. 

A powerful image captured in the midst of it all by a Reuters photographer, Kim Kyung-Hoon, on Sunday depicted a 39-year-old migrant woman from Honduras and her three daughters, one of which was barefoot, fleeing tear gas. The picture quickly spread across television screens and appeared on front pages of newspapers. 

Rather than telling the true story of the mother, Maria Lila Meza Castro, and her young children, 5-year-old twins and a 13-year-old, fleeing tear gas, Trump-supporting media outlets chose to label the entire image and the circumstances surrounding it a “hoax” and a “fake news production.”

The reasoning the far-right media outlets used for the picture being a “hoax” was that other photographers and members of the media could be seen in the background talking with other migrants. This, they said, proved the event was “staged” by the media, a claim that the fact-checking website Snopes has already labeled as "false."  In something of an irony, the same day that outlets called the image "staged" was the same day that Dictionary.com announced its word of the year was "misinformation."

newsweek

Did you know one of the conditions of amnesty is that you take it in the first country it is offered?  And that Under our current immigration laws, given the fact Mexico offered them asylum, none of them qualify for amnesty in the USA?  

I am surprised no one has asked for some form of verification of this if its true, but lets assume it is .

 If they accept Mexican offers of asylum , they can no longer claim oppression , danger or whatever that led them to decide they needed asylum,  so to enter this country legally they would then drop back a notch to a status of simple refugees which has even less likelihood of being approved than that of seeking the status of asylum..

 so it sounds to me like they are "shopping " to some degree, reminds me of the . " me lub you long time GI, take me to land of big BX/PX."

thing is anyone can apply for asylum , there is no guarantee it will be granted. people are seeming to forget that.

It is true Mark.  The problem is getting the information from the Mexican government on who they have offered it to in a timely manner (or ever)

so it sounds to me like they are "shopping " to some degree, reminds me of the . " me lub you long time GI, take me to land of big BX/PX." thing is anyone can apply for asylum , there is no guarantee it will be granted. people are seeming to forget that.

This is the problem I have with anyone with children still left in the caravan.  If they were offered asylum in Mexico they passed up a better life than they had in hopes of hitting the "USA welfare state jackpot" or a better job in an even better country.  First of all these are not reasons for asylum, second of all they are most likely putting children through needless additional hardship. 

The mother is to blame. She should have never put her children near that situation. 

Oh, fer f**k sakes.  The mother is trying to keep her children alive (and if they're girls, from being brutally raped then murdered).  I'm so disgusted by people who've never known danger and fear like that deliver "church lady" horseshit like that.  

If the mothers goal was trying to keep them alive she would have already accepted amnesty in Mexico.

she would have already accepted amnesty in Mexico.

Reached deep into the bullshit bag for that one.  First, where'd you get the idea that Mexico is offering them "amnesty" and "amnesty" for what?  And where in the universe did the idea come to you that Mexico is any better than where they came from for C.A. refugees?  It can't be just enormous naïveté or ignorance of the fact that some of the deadliest drug cartels operate freely in Mexico as well and stranded refugees would be wonderful targets for that crowd.  There almost has to be a level of indifference that borders on sadism.

First, where'd you get the idea that Mexico is offering them "amnesty" and "amnesty" for what? 

I should have said "Asylum" so sue me. (As is you didn't know what I meant)   Thanks for pointing out my mistake you must be proud of yourself.

Only hear what you want to hear?/s  Or are you a victim of the LIBERAL BIASED MEDIA?

Mexico has offered temporary work permits to migrants who register for asylum, as a big caravan of Central American migrants makes its way through the country toward the US.

The plan also envisages temporary ID cards, medical care and schooling.

But to qualify, migrants must remain in Mexico's southern Chiapas and Oaxaca states

bbc

Funniest thing about this lie crusade to try to dismiss this photograph as a fake is the glaring omission of the foreground of the woman desperately trying to get away from the tear gas and trying to get her children to safety.  Couldn't they think up some kind of lie for that, too?  The rightwing pukefunnel is slipping up in the one thing it does best:  lie. 

I think some of these people can't help themselves. Certain situations are like a Pavlov's Dog to them. They often claim news photos are fake. The ones who were tweeting about this yesterday crying that it is a fake were some of the usual suspects of the alt right twitterverse. Alex Jones associates and wannabes. They try to create a brand for themselves on social media that they can turn into a little cash.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s real or fake. These are people seeking to break into this country who have respect for the rule of law

These are people seeking to break into this country who have respect for the rule of law

Yet it's your Scumbag who's breaking the law, specifically this one:

INA: ACT 208 - ASYLUM 1/

Sec. 208.(a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-

(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States ( whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters ), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).

All that says is that they may apply for asylum it does not in any way make illegal entry into the country legal. 

Many seem to point that law out and claim it allows entry into the US at any time and place of their choosing.

When pressed to point out WHERE, they clam up.

All I am asking for is WHERE in that code it says they can come here anytime, anyplace.

What I keep getting is crickets.

All I am asking for is WHERE in that code it says they can come here anytime, anyplace.

Another example of a variation of the old saw of the horse and water.  [Deleted] The law is entirely clear and specific but I do understand why you'd continue to pretend it isn't. 

These are people seeking to break into this country who have respect for the rule of law

No, that would be the scumbag of a "president" that you blindly support. 

All that says is that they may apply for asylum it does not in any way make illegal entry into the country legal. 

By definition, entering the country for asylum is not illegal and definitely can occur at any place on the border.  It's right there in black and white but the intentionally blind will never be able to see it. 

the woman desperately trying to get away from the tear gas

The tear gas that isn't actually blowing in her direction. The same tear gas that everyone in the background is walking away from.

The tear gas that isn't actually blowing in her direction. The same tear gas that everyone in the background is walking away from.

What picture are you looking at?  Most of the people in the background of the one above do not appear to be moving much at all when the picture was taken. And, that might be because they're much farther away from the cannister and yes the smoke from it is moving in the same direction that she is.  The only thing that remains with you is just how far you're willing to go to re-imagine what's going on in that picture in order to fit your preconceptions.  I can hardly wait for your next shot at it.  

Most of the people in the background of the one above do not appear to be moving much at all

I agree. Standing. Walking. It doesn't matter much because the point was that their lack of urgency illustrates that the situation wasn't as terrible as we are supposed to believe.

the smoke from it is moving in the same direction that she is

I didn't say it wasn't. My point was it wasn't blowing at her. Like everyone else there, it doesn't appear that she needs to run - at least not from tear gas. Maybe she's just hungry and a taco truck pulled up and she's running toward it.

pretty good example of how and why the media would want to direct a conversation in a particular way, picture on the left could be described as a human rights and child abuse , until you see the one on the right that explains its staged.....

I could just as easily claim that the photo on the right was altered.  Nice try.  No cigar. 

lot of photo shopping there then if the one on the right was altered  the arm in the boot , the smile ,  still stands that a single picture doesn't always tell the whole story , and as I stated above before , plausible , reasonable doubt injected cannot simply be ignored  it will forever be a part of the discussion. might not get that Cuban cigar , but I am right as far as what I said.

Let's review how you ended your comment: 

until you see the one on the right that explains its staged.....

You unquestioningly accept that as the legitimate photo but for anyone who's adept at digital photo doctoring it'd be a snap.

back in the depression , one of my grandfathers was a boardwalk / carnival barker , he is the one that introduced me to the saying believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see. he then related the story of the "dancing chicken". people would pay to see a chicken dancing to some up beat music, but what they didn't see was that under the velvet cloth was a metal plate , which had a cooking burner under it , when the music was played , the burner got turned on,and the heated surface made the chicken appear to be dancing to the music .

the habit of the media for some time , has been to sensationalize to gain ratings , and that is to their detriment when or if they are caught , because credibility suffers from that point on , remember what I said about reasonable doubt, once its there it is almost imposable to ignore it. and the media already have plenty that doubt their truthfulness and veracity. and that is not even mentioning politics being interjected into the mix.

do I have plausible reasonable doubts about pictures I see ? of course I do , do I accept what others say is depicted ? sometimes , and usually with a very large grain of salt,

 you are free to conduct your own experiment with those pictures , I would suggest cropping off the writing and simply show the pictures, and get peoples first impressions . I left them to emphasize a point about media wanting to dictate the direction a story goes , and it worked didn't it? how I posted them here is exactly how I first saw them online. I would almost bet , that the majority response is the photos are of a staged event . what that event is, is up to the individual to decide for themselves.

he is the one that introduced me to the saying believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.

Then you seemed to have forgotten that advice when you accepted the right hand photo was the only one that could be genuine.  It's your words, not mine.  And as to "experiments," what experiments exactly did you perform on both of those photos to get to that conclusion?  

OMG - You mean there was someone behind each of those boys with a hand shoved up their asses manipulating their arms?!!!!!

That's just sooooo.......ew.  I had no idea that could be done.  

you think I conducted an experiment when I plainly stated that it emphasized a point , and the point is that the media can manipulate a picture to tell whatever story they wish to tell.  as for forgetting that advice ? I don't think I did, your the one contending that one picture is genuine while the other is not , both pictures are genuine , they just tell different stories that lead one to different conclusions.

you told me nice try but no cigar , well you have had your 3 swings and missed on all of them  and I was pitching softballs, back to the bench , better luck next time.

your the one contending that one picture is genuine while the other is not

Unfortunately for your self-serving narrative, I have not--but you're welcome to cite anything I've posted that would support your claim.  I have no idea from what I can see that which of those photos is genuine or maybe neither one is.  You certainly concluded with no evidence whatsoever that the one on the left was a fake and the one on the right was genuine.  

What I am going to say is confirmation bias. Everyone has it. 

Yesterday, I was in a discussion about the photo of the boys giving the Nazi salute. I don't care what the excuses are, but I know a Nazi salute when I see one. It was not staged. It was put on for "fun"on social media. 

This photo, on the other hand, could be anything. I did her the women and her child talk about it and she said she was running and didn't mean to be there when this was going on. Maybe she was telling the truth. Maybe not. This is not clearly defined. 

My point is, that I find the same group of people disbelieving and defending a bunch of boys giving the Nazi salute are the same saying that this is bull. Yet the information is just as mixed. But the extent to which they defend is what disturbs me. That is nothing more than confirmation bias. 

If I looked at the photo without any pre knowledge other than that it was of a tear gassing at the border, I would think that the mother in the front saw or heard the tear gas cannister before the other people did, because she was closest where it landed. And she started running.

What is the reason to doubt that is what happened?

A bunch of alt right jagoffs (excuse my French Perrie) , who cry "fake news" constantly, went on twitter yesterday and trashed the photo. I looked at a story about it, and these are some of the most disreputable people in right wing "media". Associates of either Infowars, Gateway Pundit , or both.

What is the reason to doubt that is what happened?

Because when I was at "Occupy Wall Street" I saw a lot of press there. And depending on where you took your picture (remember I was the only one doing live interviews that day), you could call the people there, crazy or rational, hippies or union workers, curious passersby or engage in the process, because all of those elements were there and it was easy to tell the story you wanted to tell. That was the reason I went down in the first place if you remembered. The bet was made by Mike L and the group gave me the questions to ask. 

Now I realize in all likelihood this event happened since I did hear her talk on several news outlets about what she and her daughters faced and there are children out there in the makeshift tent camps. But there is no way to know for sure, for the reason I gave above. 

I don't mind doubting the media when there is reason to.

The nutcases and clowns that "report" these things for the alt right and right wing media don't rise to the level of a reason to doubt the woman, or more importantly, the Reuters photographer who took the photo.

The thing about pictures is they can be doctored so easily to show anything. 

If a picture is really in question to be real or faked, unless professionally analyzed I dont see how the lay person can be sure. 

poorly altered photos yeah, but I think there are photos out there even the pros cant decide if they are real or faked. 

Just my opinion on pictures being real or not. I dont believe everything I see. And these days I question stuff that I just a picture of that I still find unbelievably. Like this: LOL !! 

Since you brought it up, "I know a nazi salute when I see one", since you know the salute go ahead and do it, no one is watching you, study the position of your hand and fingers, now go back to the picture of the boys, notice the difference.

What else is missing from the picture of boys dressed for prom, the girls.  Where are they standing, well the most likely place is behind the photographer, photographer says wave to your date, click we're done, have fun, bye.  The photo goes viral as a bunch of boys giving the nazi salute, reporters see the photo and look for the most obvious candidate to interview, the boy in the back corner not doing the salute, who either didn't have a date or didn't hear what the photographer said.  Interviewing any of the boys that had their hand up if asked why, would have said "I was just waving like the photographer asked us to do" well that's not much of a story.

Never believe the Right Wing Conspiracy Factory.

Only believe the Left Wing Conspiracy Factory.  Or the Left Wing Artisanal Organic Conspiracy Cooperative.

Never believe the Right Wing Conspiracy Factory. Only believe the Left Wing Conspiracy Factory.  Or the Left Wing Artisanal Organic Conspiracy Cooperative.

No. Use your brain and think out of the box. 

Use your brain and think out of the box

I estimate that about 8% of this forum is capable of that.

No. Use your brain and think out of the box. 

But....but....  It's artisanal.   And organic.  

I estimate that about 8% of this forum is capable of that.

Call me a cockeyed optimist but I would like to think that there are more. 

No. Use your brain and think out of the box.  But....but....  It's artisanal.   And organic.  

And I like mine with fava beans and wash it down with a fine Chianti ..fafaafafafafa

:) 

OK! Since you asked and no one else obliged you. 

YOU ARE A COCKEYED OPTIMIST!

There I hope you are happy now. 

LOL!! 

Here is the irony of this. 

If I put you and Hal in the same room, which one of you would be in part of that 8%?

Answers may vary 

It's artisanal.   And organic.  

Using your new words in order to, what, memorize them?  

Yes, this could have been a real photo....or not. The real question is, was it taken a few days ago or in 2013 when Obama authorized the use of tear gas in pretty much the same area.

Truth is, we really don't know.

Bugsy, 

Yes, Obama did the same. I never go with two wrongs make a right. I even said that then.

And no, we know it was this week since she has been interviewed by several outlets with her daughters.

The real question is, was it taken a few days ago or in 2013 when Obama authorized the use of tear gas in pretty much the same area.

So the rightwing is lying* when it claims that Obama was soft on immigration.  Thanks for confirming that. 

* could pretty much have stopped there for a complete and accurate statement.  

From 1967 through June of 1999, I represented literally hundreds of individuals in adverse actions … actions not limited to ultimate employment termination, suspension, or, demotion. 

Any time one of my clients was confronted with a particularly serious and well-documented charge … I simply called "hoax," denigrated my client's accuser …

… and that was that!

Never lost a single case.

Trump sycophants (and Trump himself) really know how to make a convincing case!

Note: GMAFB!

I guess that story ties in to how if a liberal sycophant hears or sees something they don't like, they simply call the person making the statement or visual a racist, simply to shut them up.

Seems like libs have alot of ways to demean those simply because someone said something they didn't like.

Nothing has changed...from the 32 years described above, and today.

I guess that story ties in to how if a liberal sycophant hears or sees something they don't like, they simply call the person making the statement or visual a racist, simply to shut them up.

Speaking only for myself, if I call "racist" in response to a given situation, I give the specifics and examples to go along. 

Seems like libs have alot of ways to demean those simply because someone said something they didn't like.

Your comment is merely dismissive; all sides are guilty of this … but my comment is specifically with regard to the topic of this discussion … yours is broad brush.

Trump and his followers are clearly the "fake news" whiners … do I need to post the examples?

but my comment is specifically with regard to the topic of this discussion … yours is broad brush.

Um, I replied to YOUR comment. There was nothing in it that spoke to the thread, only your personal experience and how you tie them in with Trump "sycophants".

You're right, both sides do it, but the left sure has the prize in calling people racist or sexist or homophobe, the ism of the day, or whatever the left want to demean with. It is a knee jerk reaction, even when the left is called out with their "hoaxes", especially the ones aimed against whites.

I guess that story ties in to how if a liberal sycophant hears or sees something they don't like, they simply call the person making the statement or visual a racist, simply to shut them up.

You must know how "funny" that is coming from a Trump supporter....you know, Trump?  The Scumbag who claims everything he doesn't like it a hoax or fake news?  Looks like everything Mac wrote above went "whooooooooosh" over your head.