Being offbase over a differing opinion would (ideally) be when a poster posits a view on US immigration policy as it pertains to the thread title, i.e. I agree with the governor's stance on deploying the Texas National Guard to control access to Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas which is a common BP processing area for immigrants crossing the Rio Grande or I maintain that the federal government and its agency, USBP is not doing what it needs to do blah, blah, blah.
Those are, IMO, (SWIDT) opinion statements and can and should be discussed.
When someone posts a comment, as LL did, about not believing everything one reads on social media, I would not disagree with that. Actually that is a good rule of thumb in general. However, when that statement is followed by two articles that omit certain details, then it is no less a travesty than the media sources bouncing around the events in order to catch eyeballs and outrage. LL wanted to do a drive by hit post and succeeded but when others tried to engage, using the actual materials surrounding the events, LL showed that was not the point. The point was to, essentially, raise feelings of superiority inside himself. Perhaps, because, the thought that denying monitoring access to the Shelby Park boat ramp so that BP might've noticed that a group of immigrants (consisting of mostly women and children) were in distress and that the Texas National Guard didn't do anything because they either didn't notice themselves (because they weren't monitoring crossers closely) or because they did not care if immigrants were in distress or died is something that might raise feelings of discomfort or horror. Or maybe it doesn't. Some people don't give a shit if people die crossing the Rio Grande trying to make it to the other side. That's my opinion. But the fact is, for the last two days leading to the victims' crossing, the BP has been denied access to the boat ramp where they monitor crossings and perform rescues. Also a fact: those three people are dead. The victims may or may not have made it to a better place, depending upon your beliefs.
Finally, one can argue the point about the timing of the drownings, but the fact remains that the BP had been performing monitoring and rescues and processing prior to the TNG taking over the park and its boat ramp (see earlier posts). Is the TNG going to permit monitoring or are they going to sit on the banks and watch a game of "Survivor" in real time? It was already hazardous, but this is stomach turning and inhumane. That is also my differing opinion.
SMDH