I read this ^ article in betwixt the Weinstein saga of misogyny grossness and twitter’s new rules. Where does our first amendment stand when it comes to social media? All social media is, is a platform and extension of one’s self on the internet. So if you feel hate and the need to propagate that hate on the internet then why should you be stopped? If you want to buy and sell animals on facebook market groups, is that your right? If you want to share a picture with female nipples on facebook is that your right? Why are male nipples fair game though? Is any of this fair?
Let’s go over the first amendment word by word:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, Twitter, Facebook, and wherever else you like to post isn’t government run. These are companies that can say what you can share and what you can’t share. They make the rules and sometimes those rules are less than savory for how people would like (the male vs. female nipple argument is one of my favs for ridiculous and equality reasons.) What about the Russian interference with political posts from the election, not being able to manage that was vast propagation of real “fake news”?
How can a user be able to dissuade what things they are reading as valid or just bait to emotive responses? This question isn’t rhetorical, YOU CAN CHECK THE SOURCES!!! This is an example of media that is using accurate sources inaccurately. Here’s a facebook video that makes my blood boil, not just in the way that it is illogical reasoning, unaccounted numbers and inaccurate stats, but also the message.
The first number referenced from the FBI database is that 248 people died from rifles in 2016, i crunched the numbers, 389 people died from murder by rifles in 2016. This is violent murder (not unintentional that is a different data chart) this also doesn’t include the number of suicides which is a high amount of gun violence, please do not refute me with suicide is not gun violence. They miscalculated a but for affect is my reasoning or they didn’t read the chart correctly.
The second number they reference is the amount of “babies killed” by planned parenthood. Planned parenthood’s chart says that the amount of women and men they help with reproductive services is 4,970,000 and 3% of the work they do is abortion services. At a glance you would automatically (like the makers of this video) take 3% of 4,970,000, which is 149,100, although that is wrong. Men can not receive an abortion and the number of the people that Planned Parenthood services is not just women so unless planned parenthood gives numbers on the amount of women’s services they give that is an inaccuracy.
Let’s also discuss the illogical reasoning connecting gun violence and women’s reproductive health.
Reasoning is generally either a process of deduction or inference. In a broad sense, reasoning is determination of the three parts of a causal model from partial information. Reasoning is development of an explanation of ‘how?’, or, to some level, ‘why?’ In effect, it gets at the reason for some condition, state of being or observation. Initial condition influence by causal factors lead to consequence.
Reasoning may refer to known patterns and understanding about the world relevant to a question at hand. Or it may be extension of those known patterns and that understanding based on evidence at hand. We may note a prior condition and an outcome and, with necessary information reason what the cause was. We may see a current condition, know of some event that occurred that would cause that outcome, and infer the initial condition. Or we may know the initial condition and the pending action, and then forecast the result.
Illogical reasoning is reasoning based on logic strategies that are not valid. Typically, the error in logic can be demonstrated by examples taken from a domain totally different from the subject at hand. Illogical reasoning may also arise from use of purported patterns and understanding that are readily disproved and that should be known as false, by the person attempting the reasoning.
Someone learns that a child has fallen in the playground. He asks if the child was wearing foot ware. The answer is yes. Our reasoner, himself wearing slip-on shoes declares that the child must have tripped on a loose shoelace. This is illogical, as this person knows that foot ware is a super-set of foot ware with laces; that not all shoes have laces. And tight shoelaces do not prevent tripping by any and all other possible causes.
This would be one example of illogical reasoning.
I don’t believe in this video, the information is completely skewed and rampant with misinformation. But it is their right to propagate and propagate they will. So the first amendment lives on, although I would dare to say that being more analytical of a video and numbers thrown at you would be a wise decision than to be the hapless social media news consumer cautionary tale.
Image stolen from here.