The woman behind an early Facebook post that helped spark baseless rumors about Haitians eating pets told NBC News that she feels for the immigrant community.

The woman behind an early Facebook post spreading a harmful and baseless claim about Haitian immigrants eating local pets that helped thrust a small Ohio city into the national spotlight says she had no firsthand knowledge of any such incident and is now filled with regret and fear as a result of the ensuing fallout.

“It just exploded into something I didn’t mean to happen,” Erika Lee, a Springfield resident, told NBC News on Friday.

Lee recently posted on Facebook about a neighbor’s cat that went missing, adding that the neighbor told Lee she thought the cat was the victim of an attack by her Haitian neighbors.

Newsguard, a media watchdog that monitors for misinformation online, found that Lee had been among the first people to publish a post to social media about the rumor, screenshots of which circulated online. The neighbor, Kimberly Newton, said she heard about the attack from a third party, NewsGuard reported.

  • @howrar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    83 months ago

    It certainly doesn’t. But in the absence of evidence in either direction, I think it’s most reasonable to not assume the worst of people.

      • @howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        -23 months ago

        Evidence which wasn’t available to the participants of the conversation at the time. With only what we see in the article, there’s no reason to believe that this post she made was racist.

    • @Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23 months ago

      But in the absence of evidence in either direction, I think it’s most reasonable to not assume the worst of people.

      The human world is based on purposefully creating and maintaining inequality to enable exploitation. This is empirically verifiable. It is therefore reasonable to assume that most humans do not act based on morality, but instead out of convenience and/or apathy.

      Get back to me when there are no hungry children, then I will be ready to reassess the evidence.

      • @howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        23 months ago

        You can believe what you want about human nature, but consider how well society would function if it was acceptable to make baseless accusations and act on them as if they were facts.

            • flicker
              link
              fedilink
              33 months ago

              How is “the lady who made an extremely racist post online might be racist” a random accusation, exactly?

              • @howrar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                0
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                the lady who made an extremely racist post online might be racist

                Bolded the baseless accusations. In the context of my initial comment in this thread, we didn’t have access to this post, so no one actually knew if it was actually racist.

                • flicker
                  link
                  fedilink
                  23 months ago

                  In the context of the original comment you made in this thread, we knew she had made the post. You even reference her talking about the post she made. That post is, in fact, racist. So the facts you’re trying to point to are-

                  1. She made a post
                  2. It was racist

                  There’s nothing baseless about either of those statements, so there’s nothing baseless about stating she is, in fact, probably a racist. And your arguments about giving someone (who admitted they made the racist post) the “benefit of the doubt” are arguments for giving a person, who made a racist statement, the benefit of the doubt, about being racist.

                  Accusing others of making a baseless accusation against an innocent hold zero water when these facts are evident. I am pointing at the basis.

                  • @howrar@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    03 months ago

                    You understand that not everyone has the same context as you, right? It’s fine to say “[she] made an extremely racist post online” if either

                    a) you’ve read the post and recognize that it is racist, or

                    b) someone else who has read the post has informed you that it is racist

                    It is not okay to make that claim if neither of the above hold. I’m assuming you’ve read it, so if you said she made a racist post, then that’s acceptable. I’ve read it too at this point, so I can say the same. I do not want someone who knows nothing about the situation telling me that she made a racist post.

            • @Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              And so you’ll improve it by throwing around random accusations?

              Looking back on my two previous posts in this thread, I have not accused any individual of anything. Nor do I think I can improve a human world specifically designed to hurt humans all by myself. All I can do is refrain from hurting others - this is not an action which, by itself, changes the moral behaviour of the majority.

              You, in fact, are the one throwing an accusation. You might be doing this, ironically, out of a desire to improve the world. Feel free to ask me towards the end of the lifespan whether I have noticed a difference due to your efforts.

                • @Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  13 months ago

                  Ah, yes, you do live mostly in a world that you simulate inside your head. You probably do this in order to ignore the fact that you are participating in a human world which is purposefully organised by humans in order to hurt most humans. Carry on, I’ll leave you to it.

                  • @howrar@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    03 months ago

                    Well, I’m utterly confused by what you’ve been trying to say, so a clarification would be nice. But I understand if you don’t want to continue the conversation.

          • @howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            03 months ago

            Your comment is a great example of the kind of biases I’m telling everyone to avoid. You misunderstood my initial message, then decided to cling on to that interpretation despite clarifications.

            In any case, if you have feedback (e.g. what made the comment unclear, or how you interpreted it), I’d appreciate hearing about it so I can improve my writing. I’m not always aware of the hidden meanings non-autistic people pull out of words that weren’t intended to have any.

            • @redisdead@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              13 months ago

              I understood your message

              Blah blah blah we don’t know she’s a racist because weh weh weh random bullshit about missing context.

              Yes we do. She’s a racist shitbag. The context is her being a racist shitbag writing a racist shitbag post on social media. The post has been displayed on various news sources and visible to anyone with a passing interest in the subject.

              Her only remorse is that her casual racism turned out to be exposed to the public and the racist in chief is putting the spotlight on her racist shitbaggery.