Appallingly slanted reporting from the Guardian -- DC plane crash

[GeneralPeter]

This article describes Trump's theory that DEI had something to do with the crash using debunking words throughout. 'Baselessly', 'without providing evidence' etc etc.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/30/trump-washington-dc-plane-crash-dei

The thing is, this isn't 'baseless'.

The FAA has said that the tower was understaffed. We don't know if that was relevant or has not. We do know that FAA recruitment cratered because of a (very well-evidenced) extremely crude attempt at DEI. There is a long-running class action lawsuit that is on public record and not made up. The test really did award points for saying you had more Ds than Cs at school, for saying science was your weakest subject, etc etc and they did then give the answers to candidates of a particular race before the test.

Sometimes things that sound like loonish right-wing conspiracy theories actually turn out to be true. If you think I must be a right-wing loon, please read this thread first (and many others out there -- this is all public record in court documents and not denied by the FAA).

x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

You would not know any of this if you read the Guardian article. Their reporter must surely know this stuff. So it's another attempt to bury with slurs an ideologically inconvenient actual truth. We've seen this before with sex-based rights, and the Guardian should stop it.

(Obligatory: I'm not a Trump fan, think he is appalling in many respects, several of them disqualifying for the presidency. But while comment is free, facts should be sacred).

I'm not sure there are any Trump supporters on this thread. Maybe there are. I'm not one.

I think the election denying disqualifies him from the presidency, probably in a strong constitutional sense, not just on taste.

I like truth and evidence. Trump rides roughshod over them regularly, for power, ideology, vanity. Bad bad bad.

The Guardian does so selectively, on specific issues, for ideology. Bad.

Looking at the number of countries who have banned guns, it is not just a UK perspective, it is just common sense.

Mind you, Trump likes to pick and choose which bits of the constitution he likes. Yes to guns, no to babies born in America.

You are welcome to your choice of adjectives. But my description is of one article (or, one pattern, I suppose). Your source is describing the paper as a whole. 'Mixed' is fair as a description of the paper, I think.

I am not sure the response to Trumps victory from a lot of Democrats was much better than Trumps response to the last Democrat victory. Neither seemed to have much respect for voters.

Even after 17 pages I can't understand why you are so against many news media outlets (though you are focussing on just one) using the word baseless. Because it WAS baseless when he went on his sad little rant about dwarves and psychologically impaired people.

The DEI court case isn't about safety. It is about people losing out on a job due to them not having any protected characteristics under DEI hiring. There is NO evidence that any DEI hires were on duty that night, and there wasn't at the time he said it. He could have highlighted many possible reasons at that point for the crash, but he didn't, he focussed only on DEI hirings. His claims were, in fact, baseless. There were recordings of the tower trying to contact the helicopter and getting no response.

But you've given the "trans people are evil" brigade a chance to chime in, and those against positive DEI directives a platform. So well done

But critically it is not a perspective taken by a lot of Americans. Guns are hugely political there - the Democrats didn’t attempt to significantly control them either as they would lose so many votes if they tried. The Gun lobby is hugely powerful. So talking about Guns is very political - at least as political as DEI if not more so. So raising Gun control in response to a shooting, whilst logical to us, is very consciously political there.

Hmm

Do you really believe that??

Don't recall Harris-Biden denying they'd lost the election

Or interfering with the confirmation hearings

Or encouraging a mob to assault the Capitol

No they took a different approach - closing down colleges for the day so, offering mental health support, weeping on TikTok, proclaiming certain groups will be genocided or commit suicide. More coercive. Stating they would ignore laws passed by the republicans (as could be seen by the Trans activist men immediately invading the capitol’s female toilets when men were banned from them).

I get that, 53% of Americans want stricter gun control. The point in this discussion is people equating gun control calls after a tragedy (Obama and Sandy Hook), which makes total sense, with blaming an air tragedy on DEI policy (batshit political point scoring).

If Trump had never said it out loud it would not have crossed anyone's mind because it would require mental gymnastics to make the link. But he did, and here we are 17 pages later....

https://www.newsweek.com/washington-dc-plane-crash-jo-ellis-trans-helicopter-pilot-wrongly-named-2024149

It makes total sense to us to ban guns, but not to all Americans. There are a great many who say that in order to stop school shootings teachers should keep guns in the classroom.

That wasn't Biden or Harris. That was individual americans. You know, Freedom of speech. I believe that is in the constitution.

Besides, if I was a trans person in the US, or a person of colour who has just been sacked from Federal Government, I'd be feeling pretty unsafe right now.

Ok, Sheila, and you have that swell day too! Lol.

In all seriousness, I commented on personal attacks in general not being acceptable. And your response was "you must report if you think it is a personal attack". If you were being serious that I must report every personal attack i see, let me know. Because I did not know that.

My comment was/is in general personal attacks are not acceptable.

They do believe that, despite all the evidence of every other country who has banned guns that gun related crime massively reduces and mass shootings become almost non-exisitent. But 47% of muricans love their guns, and most politicians rely on gun money to get elected, so here we are.

Money and corruption comes above children's lives.

@justteanbiscuits

Thanks for taking the time to read through the whole thing, and the linked explainer and court papers too I presume.

If you still don't understand why I hold my position (not: if you still don't agree with me. You are welcome to whatever view you like), then I'd guess it may come down to what you and I think 'baseless' means, and what you think the basic thrust of Trump's claims were.

As for harm to positive DEI stuff: I don't really see that as relevant to how the Guardian should report news. (It's relevant to what Trump said/should say, of course!). That might be another core difference between us. I think two things: 1) that news reporting should be fact-focused, without worrying too much about social policy objectives (I do have some limitations to this. But basically). And 2) that this style of reporting further polarises and tribalises DEI which is just as likely to harm as to help the development of good policy.

Besides, if I was a trans person in the US, or a person of colour who has just been sacked from Federal Government, I'd be feeling pretty unsafe right now.

That is the point of the reporting.

Trump literally signed an executive order which refused to recognise trans people.

Anyway, more evidence in this segueway conversation that Trump has managed to further demonise trans/disabled/people of colour. We really are in an authoritarian spiral.

Your post is aiming to promotes liar and gaslighter, and to demonise a truth teller. You know this obviously, and I think people like you are without morals.

A lot of the issue with banning guns is just how difficult it would be with so many that are out there in the populace. Unfortunately a gun ban would just mean that the law abiding people would hand their guns in but a vast majority of the criminal gangs would not so people would feel unable to defend their homes from burglaries. The tragic event in Uvelde showed that you can’t rely on law enforcement to protect you

Your thread, I mean.

Baseless was a fact. There was no base the suggestions it had been caused by the DEI policy.

Interesting he made no mention of the FAA staff who have been told to quit etc which is much more likely to have been a reason.

Baseless means there was no evidence to back up his assertion.

Who is a ‘truth teller’?

Yeah, but most mass killings of children and college students are carried out by socially awkward and isolated young, mainly white, men who take guns belonging to their law abiding Dads. So they wouldn't get access anymore. If gang bangers want to shoot each other with illegal guns, that is a different story. But generally they don't go on mass killing sprees.

Anyone who says the link between DEI and the air crash is baseless at this stage of the investigation would be a good start at truth telling.

On what basis can you declare it is baseless? If there has been no investigation?