World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[jp1]

Well I attempted tackling the Bias Media question and all I got back was garbage instead of dialog. I do not need to explain pronunciation or caps deviating from the discussion, deal with it or ignore it. Pretty sad thing to say about another Member not having a proper education. Some take this Thread too serious and let their emotions do the typing.

@ dsheinem - Thank you for keeping the discussion focused. I am not saying studies are completely infallible and can still be a reference, it is just that human nature will have bias on anything as evidenced in the other Replies including mine. I threw in the coverage of the AG firing as an example doing a comparison myself of CNN, MSNBC, CBS and FOX; a huge disparity how the announcement and dialog presented.

The Spin
Strange how some of the responses of my previous post case studies take personal offense on the abortion coverage in the charts. It was a reference of media coverage that was being analyzed. I even mentioned ignore the abortion stance for the purpose of the case study.

Nobody stated anything, I asked a question. It was an honest question, no malice intended behind it. I even explained the reason for asking.

By the way, someone wondering if you speak English as a first language is not an insult, and neither is wondering if you had access to a good education. Insinuating these things as a method to discredit your opinions would be a different story. I'm simply telling you it is hard to figure out what you are saying.

Sorry if it sounds condescending, it was genuine. I wouldn't make fun of someone for their grammar on grounds of a poor education or not having a proper grasp on the language.

[ElkinFencer10]

You're trying to express your ideas and reasons for them, CRT, and language is how ideas are expressed. If your language skills are chaotic at best, your ideas aren't going to get through effectively.

[marurun]

Sorry if it sounds condescending, it was genuine. I wouldn't make fun of someone for their grammar on grounds of a poor education or not having a proper grasp on the language.

Let me echo this. The reason I edited that into the bottom of my post is that if the reason your English is grammatically messy and hard to understand is something you can't help, I don't want to ridicule you for it.

Regardless, for whatever reason, your use of English isn't particularly good or clear, and that makes it hard to understand many of your points. And that means that I don't know whether to assume the worst about your intentions, or simply blame your ability to communicate your intentions. You talk a lot about debate and discussion, but debate and discussion are very difficult when people are not clear in their use of language.

If you want to be better understood, it might be a good idea to write the text of your post in advance and wait an hour or two before going back and editing before submitting. I find I have to do that sometimes for work emails, and it can make a big difference in the quality of my communication.

[Sarge]

I am sorry that your yearly March for life did not have as much press coverage as a worldwide protest of Donald Trump and his sexism, racism and rampant xenophobia. I am sorry that more people care about their lives and futures as a gender than care about unborn babies and giving control of women's bodies to men.

BMF, I know you mean well, but I think you misread the intent of the pro-life movement.

Coverage of the March For Life has been very limited for years, despite in some years having hundreds of thousands of participants. I can appreciate, though, that the Women's March was a new event, therefore leading to increased coverage.

It is possible, I might add, to care about both. Indeed, there were pro-life groups that marched in both, although in the Women's March, they were excluded from being there in an official capacity. Many, many women are pro-life as well, and it should be noted that the views of both men and women as it regards pro-life/pro-choice are nearly identical, according to a recent Pew study.

[ElkinFencer10]

I think we would do ourselves a big favor if we stopped framing it as "pro-life" as that implies that those of us who support a woman's right to choose are somehow "anti-life." Pro-choice folks aren't even necessarily pro-abortion; I'm not. I don't like abortion at all, but I don't think it's the government's role to regulate a woman's body. I think that fact often gets lost in the debate.

[marurun]

I think we would do ourselves a big favor if we stopped framing it as "pro-life" as that implies that those of us who support a woman's right to choose are somehow "anti-life.".

I'm pretty sure we're all clear on how "pro-life" is simply a propaganda term. It really should be anti-abortion and pro-choice. But y'know, the pro-life crown got the term to stick, so that may be a lost cause.

[Sarge]

One could just as easily argue that "pro-choice" is a propaganda term, too. It's just a question of which side of the debate you fall on. Both sides use words to frame perceptions. Anti-abortion is also accurate, and it is also the term you often see in media, but it is better to be "pro" something than "anti" from pure positive/negative connotations.

[ElkinFencer10]

I think pro-choice is a pretty fitting term. The pro-life crowd wants to limit access to abortion, yes? That limits a woman's right to choose whether or not to abort.

[MrPopo]

The way I see it is the pro-choice crowd wants to see abortions available, leaving it up to individual people to decide whether or not having an abortion is the right thing for them. The pro-life crowd feels that no one should be able to have an abortion. So in terms of describing the legislative agendas I think pro-choice and anti-abortion are the best ways of describing them. The philosophies of WHY they want those legislative choices are up to a wider debate.

[Sarge]

Pro-abortion would also be accurate to a degree, but to manage perception, it is framed as pro-choice, shifting emphasis from the procedure itself to the choice that a mother makes.

I know that many here don't feel this way, but if one does view abortion as the taking of a human life, then it should be unsurprising that they would have issues with the "choice" aspect.

I also don't believe that the pro-life community (at least those I run with) think no one should have an abortion: in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, I'm totally on board. As pro-choice supporters state, I want a world where abortion is safe, legal, and rare.