View Full Version : The Thing About Headlines
Recently there was a poll asking Americans if they would fight or flee the country in the event of a Ukraine style invasion. The majority chose the fight option, but among self-reported Democrats the majority chose flight. Older Americans were more likely than younger Americans to choose fighting.
The interesting thing to me was how various sources headlined the same story. Those on the left had some variation on “Most Americans would Fight”, while those on the right used a “Democrats would Run” headline.
That is definitely interesting. And unfortunately people only have time to read headlines and only read the whole article when it supports their own beliefs.
I think a lot of progressives would like an excuse to flee this sinking ship (and a place to go), which probably explains your article.
I think a lot of progressives would like an excuse to flee this sinking ship (and a place to go), which probably explains your article.
I don't think it's as simple as that. I read about the results of this poll several days ago but must admit I haven't seen much coverage of it since then. As I recall the results were broken down by several identifiers and showed that a majority of self identified Republicans and Independents would stay and defend their country while a majority of Democrats would not, a majority of men would stay while a majority of women would not, a majority of white and hispanic males would stay while a majority of black males would not.
I didn't find any of the results surprising nor do I find the difference in how media outlets choose to headline it surprising. From a societal perspective it makes some groups appear more responsible and civic minded than others, some media choose to highlight that while others choose to diminish it depending on the ideological lens through which they operate.
I think a lot of progressives would like an excuse to flee this sinking ship (and a place to go), which probably explains your article.
Why would they need an invasion as an excuse? If they (honestly, not rhetorically) believe our ship is sinking, why not leave at their first convenience? That would seem to be better for all concerned.
I don't think it's as simple as that. I read about the results of this poll several days ago but must admit I haven't seen much coverage of it since then. As I recall the results were broken down by several identifiers and showed that a majority of self identified Republicans and Independents would stay and defend their country while a majority of Democrats would not, a majority of men would stay while a majority of women would not, a majority of white and hispanic males would stay while a majority of black males would not.
I didn't find any of the results surprising nor do I find the difference in how media outlets choose to headline it surprising. From a societal perspective it makes some groups appear more responsible and civic minded than others, some media choose to highlight that while others choose to diminish it depending on the ideological lens through which they operate.
Next up: Competing explanations for higher gas prices.
Why would they need an invasion as an excuse? If they (honestly, not rhetorically) believe our ship is sinking, why not leave at their first convenience?
I think Jane nailed that answer in her post. Where would a progressive go and find happiness?
I think Jane nailed that answer in her post. Where would a progressive go and find happiness?
Denmark, circa 1971?
I think Jane nailed that answer in her post. Where would a progressive go and find happiness?
Canada might fit the bill, but the progressives would probably think there’s too many guns.
Canada might fit the bill, but the progressives would probably think there’s too many guns.
Canada has stronger gun laws than the US, requiring classes in safe weapons use and licensure, and banning automatic weapons, among other measures.
Progressives want NO guns. They’d probably like the UK better, where people panic and call 911 if they even find old ammo buried in their yard.
Canada has stronger gun laws than the US, requiring classes in safe weapons use and licensure, and banning automatic weapons, among other measures.
Can US citizens purchase automatic weapons?
It's interesting to note that virtually all countries go to great lengths to limit their citizens access to defensive weapons and now we see in Ukraine that citizens are desperate to acquire weapons and ammunition to help turn back an aggressive and invasive government. Who (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/) could have possibly forseen that? (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/)
early morning
3-9-22, 3:20pm
"Progressives want NO guns" Uh, sure. Just like all conservative supporters of Trump want a totalitarian state. Sure, some of them do, but really? I'm a progressive. I have guns. Many on the left are just as armed as those on the right. Most of us just want more responsible laws governing said weapons. And yes, some progressives would like no guns. I actually have a very conservative friend who thinks citizens should not have arms, lest they rise up against a strong Christian government they don't agree with (his words, not mine!!). (irony much?) And old ammo/grenades/bombs can be very unstable. I don't think I'd be happy to have unexploded ordinance in my back yard. I sure as heck wouldn't try to deal with it myself.
I can throw vases at the bad guys!
I understand canned tomatoes can be effective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlXhw_6nnb0
early morning
3-9-22, 4:11pm
I had an aunt who could knock you for a loop with a black walnut from like, 100 yards or more. Those things HURT!
My dad used to tell the story about doing something bad when he was a boy that resulted in my grandmother ordering him to go get her a switch. He told her that she couldn't discipline him if she couldn't catch him before running outside and running around the house multiple times, taunting her on each trip past the kitchen door. On his last trip past the door she threw a day old biscuit at him and blacked his eye.
ToomuchStuff
3-9-22, 5:05pm
Recently there was a poll asking Americans if they would fight or flee the country in the event of a Ukraine style invasion. The majority chose the fight option, but among self-reported Democrats the majority chose flight. Older Americans were more likely than younger Americans to choose fighting.
The interesting thing to me was how various sources headlined the same story. Those on the left had some variation on “Most Americans would Fight”, while those on the right used a “Democrats would Run” headline.
Of course the Meme reaction would be unarmed Democrats would run, while being covered by armed Republicans. But that is neither reading the story, no genuine, since there are people on both sides who both support and don't, the 2nd.
I think a lot of progressives would like an excuse to flee this sinking ship (and a place to go), which probably explains your article.
Why would they need an invasion as an excuse? If they (honestly, not rhetorically) believe our ship is sinking, why not leave at their first convenience? That would seem to be better for all concerned.
I think Jane nailed that answer in her post. Where would a progressive go and find happiness?
Rob, Rob, Rob (Buehler, Buehler, Buehler).......
Can US citizens purchase automatic weapons?
It's interesting to note that virtually all countries go to great lengths to limit their citizens access to defensive weapons and now we see in Ukraine that citizens are desperate to acquire weapons and ammunition to help turn back an aggressive and invasive government. Who (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/) could have possibly forseen that? (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/)
Yes they can.
Pre ban, not inexpensive (forum friend on another forum, spent 20K for the cheapest one he could find, late secret Santa friend, went with a Billionaires daughter, who had armed security, including one with an automatic weapon, after she had been kidnapped, years ago, with a 7 figure ransom)
https://www.armsunlimited.com/Beretta-93R-9mm-Machine-Pistol-p/93r.htm
Yes they can.
Pre ban, not inexpensive (forum friend on another forum, spent 20K for the cheapest one he could find, late secret Santa friend, went with a Billionaires daughter, who had armed security, including one with an automatic weapon, after she had been kidnapped, years ago, with a 7 figure ransom)
https://www.armsunlimited.com/Beretta-93R-9mm-Machine-Pistol-p/93r.htm
Yes, but that's not totally answering the question. A person can legally purchase an older (manufactured prior to 1986) automatic weapon if they are willing to spend 10's of thousands of dollars and wait perhaps a year for the ATF permit to be reviewed and approved, then pay hundreds of dollars per year to have the permit renewed.
Other than that the only way to legally purchase one is if you have a Federal Firearms License enabling you to engage in a business including importation or manufacturing of firearms. In reality the legal possession of automatic weapons is regulated to the point that its not possible for the vast majority of people to own one, although this doesn't stop people from falsely blaming them for most of the horrific gun violence our modern society generates.
Canada's restrictions on legal ownership aren't really much different, I believe they still allow the purchase of automatic weapons registered prior to 1978, so they're not banned there either.
ToomuchStuff
3-9-22, 8:31pm
Can US citizens purchase automatic weapons?
Yes, but that's not totally answering the question.
I thought it did. Seems like a poorly worded question, then.
I thought it did. Seems like a poorly worded question, then.Perhaps
Recently there was a poll asking Americans if they would fight or flee the country in the event of a Ukraine style invasion. The majority chose the fight option, but among self-reported Democrats the majority chose flight. Older Americans were more likely than younger Americans to choose fighting.
The interesting thing to me was how various sources headlined the same story. Those on the left had some variation on “Most Americans would Fight”, while those on the right used a “Democrats would Run” headline.
Judging from the conversation that has happened over the past 13 hours this headline seems to have done it's job of making americans fight each other. Maybe we could add in masks to the topic and wait to see what unrelated thing jeppy has to say about it.
Judging from the conversation that has happened over the past 13 hours this headline seems to have done it's job of making americans fight each other. Maybe we could add in masks to the topic and wait to see what unrelated thing jeppy has to say about it.
The interesting part to me that it wasn’t so much “this headline” as multiple headlines covering the same story.
I've known plenty of Democrats who have owned guns and plenty of Republicans who haven't. Party stereotypes get old. I don't know the coverage of this particular poll, but many such polls cover such a small percentage of the population that extrapolating to the public at large becomes questionable at best. Plus, an answer on a poll doesn't always guarantee that a person will act that way if the hypothetical situation were to actually arise. People can do surprising things in a crisis. I don't put a lot of stock in any polls, though they can be interesting or entertaining. But whether any of them actually reflect any reality remains debatable.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.