Just want to thank all the international World Cup fans for coming and lifting all of us Americans up with your absolutely charming encounters with our big weird country. We needed it. Best 250th birthday gift ever.
A German visiting Auburn, Alabama, to watch Lionel Messi and Argentina play Iceland stopped at a Buc-ee's and ate brisket sandwiches on a stack of deer feeder corn.
A sentence never before uttered in all of human history.
@Super70sSports@m_millsey How about the time he had a broken arm and was chatting in street clothes with the radio booth but got dressed over his cast mid-game because there was bad blood brewing. He ultimately stopped some sad sack from stomping after Pascual Perez.
Fascinating example of how social media works today… (LONG POST)
Saw a display in the BHM airport honoring the Tuskegee Airmen.
Like 99.999% of Americans, I’m Team 🇺🇸… especially over Nazis.
Posted it.
Most responses were what you’d expect likes, RTs, patriotism.
Then the algorithm shifted.
Started seeing a wave of replies saying:
“Tuskegee success was a myth. Just PR. DEI BS”
The argument?
They had fewer aerial kills than other escort groups, so therefore it was all BS.
So I paused and did a real deep dive
looked for actual historical data from the official Air Force accounts and historians.
Here’s what I found….
They were right. They did have less aerial kills the other fighter groups.
However…..
The SAME data being used to discredit them tells a completely different story if you read the whole reports.
Yes, they had fewer kills.
But here’s the data that they omitted:
Bombers lost under escort (same theater, same aircraft):
• Tuskegee Airmen: 27
• Other groups: ~49, 68, 88
That’s not spin. That’s the mission.
Escort fighters weren’t there to run up kill counts, they were there to protect bombers.
And by that measure, the 332nd was one of the most effective groups in the war.
Why did they have less aerial kills? Was it because they were less skilled?
Historians pointed out the 332nd was known for staying disciplined and stuck with the bombers while others groups tended to often peel off chasing kills.
So both things can be true:
• Fewer kills
• More bombers protected
But here’s the social media lesson:
Same report. Same data.
One side cherry-picks “lowest kills” = “they weren’t good”
But they “conveniently” left out the part where they protected bombers better than anyone.
What I observed? 2 things.
1) Most of the accounts pushing the “myth” angle? Burner accounts, fake names…,people that hid behind a vague account names
2) Setting the record straight wasn’t the goal of the “myth” posters, it was for them to get their personal beliefs off without the actual information they claimed to have used.
Anyway…
Team America 🇺🇸🫡
@SCweather_wx I have my neck of Greenville’s Eastside with near 1” at 0938 after things ramped up around 0731. No sign of slowing down that I see from my window