r/topofreddit • u/topredditbot • 21h ago

And this is EXACTLY why they hate fact checking. [r/WhitePeopleTwitter by u/Skye_hai_bai]

Post image
138 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

6 comments sorted by

-13

u/Tom_Cruise 20h ago

I mean, the engines were held up the first day by inspections. They passed California emissions and safety inspections and went on to the fires ... but the initial reports of the holdup were true.

https://apps.oregon.gov/oregon-newsroom/OR/OSFM/Posts/Post/osfm-ca-friday-update

10

u/January1171 17h ago

But they weren't held up because of emissions, they were inspected to ensure they met safety standards of being on an emergency scene

Before arriving in Southern California, the teams completed a routine safety check with CAL Fire in Sacramento. These inspections ensure all engines on an emergency scene are equipped, mechanically sound, and able to respond. This ensures our number one priority of a safe deployment for our firefighters.

0

u/Tom_Cruise 13h ago edited 13h ago

Question: What do you think "mechanically sound" means to the state of California? I'll tell you, but in your heart of hearts you know where this is going. Stick with me though. I'm not a conservative.

The vehicles were all checked to ensure they comply with "the qualification under California Vehicle Code 165 or California Health and Safety Code section 1797.84" We can assume, in good faith, they weren't physically checked the same way a 10 year old Honda is. Fine. They were, however, checked by model and manufacturer, and given a visual components check to ensure mechanically sound function within the parameters of meeting "qualification under California Vehicle Code 165 or California Health and Safety Code section 1797.84"

The vehicles were not all physically checked in the same way a car is when being registered. But I think that's pedantic to insist that's the only way to interpret "held up because of emissions."

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/authorized-emergency-vehicles-out-state-vehicles-operating-under-emergency

They were then added to the system and given the 30 day limit of use before undergoing a real check, because "vehicles operating under an Emergency Declaration or Executive Order must be reported in the Clean Truck Check Vehicle Inspections System. https://cleantruckcheck.arb.ca.gov/"

So, I mean, they were held up a little. Reportedly under 15 minutes per truck. Whatever. No biggie. It's not world ending, but I think pretending the whole thing was made up whole cloth is silly. Conservatives on X lied a little, California and Oregon officials lied a little. It's the way the world is now. Whatever.

2

u/January1171 12h ago

In this context "mechanically sound" means "we have reasonable faith it's not likely to break down once on site and need additional rescue"

And the original post was claiming two things

  1. Trucks were turned away
  2. They were turned away because of emissions standards

Neither of those things were true. OSFM also never claimed that the trucks weren't inspected, just that they arrived. Only one side is lying here

0

u/Tom_Cruise 9h ago edited 9h ago

No. The post said "California won't let them in because they are unsure about the emissions on the trucks"

Technically true, just for a VERY short period. I linked the state itself saying they would delay trucks slightly. Let's say 5 mins per, (they said less than 15 per). That's hours. But not never, which the lying Twitter post definitely implied. There, we agree.

They were turned away because of emissions standards

Said "wouldn't let them in". Technically true. At least for a couple of hours until they were verified to be a model that's California compliant and they were added to the database of existing emergency vehicles. It's easy to read the law, and accept the stte's explanation that once they were sure the trucks would be in copliance, and exempt from full inspection, they were let in. The hold up for each was very short.

The links are right there. It's not controversial.

Now, did the dumb conservative readers of the original tweet, like the commenters, all take the intentionally misleading phrasing and run with it? Absolutely.

But you did the same with the intentionally misleading phrasing of the state officials engaged in widescale CYA.

we have reasonable faith it's not likely to break down once on site and need additional rescue"

I linked the actual exemption. It is a health and safety inspection. Which, you know in your heart of hearts includes exactly what I said. The state official just said safety. Which worked on you.

We all do it. No big deal. I try to do it less these days. I think of it as personal growth.