Anyone giving this certain post a like has not considered reading all posts through to grasp a bigger picture, and therefore aren’t considered “likeable”.
They LIKED that only reading point 2 & 3, ignoring the rest to suit their agenda.
Please read all through before throwing likes at this one.

Anyone giving this certain post a like has not considered reading all posts through to grasp a bigger picture, and therefore aren’t considered “likeable”.
They LIKED that only reading point 2 & 3, ignoring the rest to suit their agenda.
Please read all through before throwing likes at this one.

Just terrible. How far can they go before the next election? I’m honestly terrified.

🧭 Conclusion

The text contains misleading and factually unsupported claims, especially the assertion that South Africa has more anti‑White laws today than anti‑Black laws under apartheid. Credible sources show this narrative is inaccurate and often used for political or ideological purposes.

5. It appeals to emotion rather than evidence.

The message positions the writer as morally fair (“I oppose all discrimination”), which can make the factual claim seem more credible even though it is unsupported.

4. It equates corrective economic policies with apartheid.

This is a false equivalence.
Apartheid was a comprehensive system of racial domination enforced by dozens of explicit laws Britannica +1.
Modern policies are targeted economic measures, not civil‑rights restrictions.

3. It uses a rhetorical technique common in misinformation.

The structure is:

• Assert something extreme
• Claim it is obvious
• Frame it as a moral stance

This can make the reader feel that disagreeing means they support discrimination.

2. The central claim contradicts available evidence.

The idea that South Africa has more anti‑White laws than apartheid had anti‑Black laws is not supported by credible sources and has been explicitly debunked as misleading bee.co.za

1. The claim is presented as “fact” without evidence.

The text asserts certainty (“The facts are there for anyone to observe”) but provides no specifics.

✔️ Yes — the message contains misleading elements.

Here’s why:

🧠 Is there deceit present?

The UN and human rights organizations describe modern South Africa as still working to dismantle the legacy of apartheid, not creating a reverse version of it OHCHR.

These policies can create preferential treatment in some economic contexts, but they are not equivalent in scope, severity, or purpose to apartheid laws, and they do not restrict basic civil rights.

These were explicit, sweeping, and legally enforced racial restrictions.

Modern South Africa does have Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B‑BBEE) policies, which aim to correct historical economic exclusion.

The apartheid era included a vast network of laws controlling:

• where people could live
• where they could work
• whom they could marry
• what education they could receive
• what political rights they had
• what public spaces they could enter