this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2026
718 points (93.7% liked)
Not The Onion
22954 readers
226 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But they didn't call the cops on a black family. The only time black is mentioned is in the title.
They called the cops on a 3 year old playing soccer too well. Which in and of itself is enough to warrant ridicule.
It feels like what you're saying is that if the article says black more often you'd feel like it was racism?
No, what I'm saying is that they're inferring racism to stir up outrage which feeds engagement and clicks.
If the article actually said they called the police because he was black that'd one thing. But it doesn't because there is no evidence of it so all they do is mention the race of the child and boom. Here you are screaming at the top of your lungs RACISM! RACISM!
Not everyone does things because they're racist or hate others that are not their own race.
Nobody calls the cops and says "help there are black kids playing soccer come arrest them for being black"
They do absurd things to minorities. Like calling the cops to kick a 3 year old out of the game. It has plausible deniability but they sure as shit wouldn't have done that to a white kid.
You're looking for something you'll only find in the most extreme racists. Addressing ONLY that means you will never live in a society without racism.
Maybe you don't care, but it's in poor solidarity with minorities.
At this point, I don't think you know what you're talking about and are simply grasping at straws rather than conceding your point.
Let me reiterate my argument. The news agency, as a reporting organization expected to adhere to journalistic ethics and standards, had absolutely no basis to claim that the parents called the police because the child was black. They had no evidence establishing that racial motivation. Instead, they chose to highlight the boy's race in the headline, seemingly to instigate controversy and generate engagement.
That editorial decision is itself worthy of criticism. Yet, for some reason, you're perfectly willing to accept the implication of racism in the headline while simultaneously assuming that racism motivated the parents to call the police, despite the lack of evidence establishing that connection.
You're making an assumption based on the fact that the child is black, the parents are white, and the police were called. That's not evidence of racial motivation. It's a conclusion you've drawn from the circumstances without establishing the necessary connection between them.
I don't know how else to explain the logical inconsistency in your argument. You're criticizing one party for potentially acting on racial assumptions while making your own assumptions about the motivations of the people involved. Meanwhile, you're overlooking the possibility that the reporting agency deliberately emphasized race to frame the story in a way that would provoke a reaction.
If you're unwilling to examine that inconsistency, then there's not much more I can say. I can only point out what I see as the absurdity of the situation, and I believe I've done that sufficiently.