Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

[stanky]

when things don't make rational sense, there's usually a logical explanation.

(the agenda of the sociopath, for instance.)

[Meadmaker]

"How the anti-gender movement is bringing us closer to authoritarianism"


This falls in the category of "You really don't realize just how bad those scumbags are." Headlines like this don't just insult "the other side". They insult everyone. The author of the piece will explain the secrets behind the evil people on the other side. It's conspiracty thinking. At least, that's what I expect.

Now I'll read the piece.


Having read the piece........the volume of stupid inside that piece is stunning. I'm not even going to quote the stupid parts because each individual part doesn't seem as stupid as the piece as a whole. It's dumbfounding. There's so much wrong. He projects straw men for the opposition. He ignored his own team's descent into authoritarianism. It's hyperbokic and just plain ridiculous. It provides no support for its claims. It's just wrong at every turn.


And yet.....there is a danger rising out of the anti-gender movement, but not for the reasons he thinks. He doesn;'t comprehend what he sees and it is at least conceivable that we will end up where he fears. If we do, he won't understand how we got there.

[Admin]

I read a lot of news, and I have no doubt MSN is the worst of all of them.

[Meadmaker]

I read a lot of news, and I have no doubt MSN is the worst of all of them.

Agreed. I have them on my home page, but I barely count it as news. They seem to deliberately choose "outrage" topics, and miscellaneous other clickbait. Of course, that's what they intend. If I read reputable source, I wouldn't run across as much stupid.

Their algorithm though has picked up that I want to be informed of archeological discoveries, so that's a plus.


That particular article ran from the LA Times, but editorials are often questionable in every source.

[Meadmaker]

The Second Amendment Dealt A Heavy Blow By New Court Decision


"Heavy blow"?

Falls into the "very, very important thing happened, but hardly anyone noticed except us. Click to find out something very important."

I wonder what it is. District judge says you can't have machine guns? District court says maybe a state doesn't have to let just anyone have a concealed carry permit? Appeals court says that you have to keep your gun locked up if there are teenagers in the house? Let's see what the "heavy blow" is.


And the winner is.....

Appeals court says it's ok for a state to ban AR-15s.

Which is a bigger deal than I thought it would be. It should be interesting to see if the Supremes hear an appeal

Personally, even if the Supremes hold up the ruling, or refuse to hear the case, I don't think it's a "heavy blow", but other opinions may vary.

[stanky]

i struggle to comprehend our gun freedom obsession. some states are throwing caution to the wind...like it's a redneck competition.
Need a weapon? Move to our state, no background check; mental illness ok; domestic violence conviction, no problem! Fully auto! 100 round clips! Coming soon? Grenades! Let freedom ring! (and ring in your ears later)

I think it's a surrogate freedom. It's worth nothing in one's quality of life, though it fits into a grim fantasy future. Pity is, while the fools drool over the gun freedoms, they don't seem to notice all the other ones evaporating.
As expensive toys go, an assault rifle just doesn't seem like much fun. Blow off some rounds at a shooting park; maybe hit a target. spend a lot on bullets. Whoopee. Tree climbing gear is more fun. Kite flying. Skates. Base jumping. Feckin' golf.

Ya' can't even play catch with bullets. Unless you're killing people, i'd think they'd be very disappointing.

What has happened to Taylor Swift? Is her sudden absence as media darling a sign of trouble with romance? Or worse? Is it true that she's chosen to abort the baby? Un-named sources claim it wouldn't have been white.What does "Ye" say?

(I see you have an ad blocker. Dump it to read more.)

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, I've never understood the appeal of shooting stuff.

[Meadmaker]

Yeah, I've never understood the appeal of shooting stuff.

I understand the appeal of shooting stuff. I positively enjoy it with arrows, and I think I would enjoy it with guns if it were easier. Gun ranges are too expensive for my tastes. Target sports are cool.

What I don't understand is why we allow people to wander around with guns so that they can shoot "stuff", which in this case is almost always people, just in case they feel the need to do so. They're going to get it wrong most of the time.


So, here's today's headline:

Targeting transgender athletes ignores the real problem



Anytime an editorial promises to share with us "the real problem", my BS detector goes into high gear.

In this case, it could be an extremely intelligent article, or it could be a load of codswallop, so it doesn't quite fit the mould of this thread. It's not obvious from the outset that it's misleading or stupid. However, a lot of "real problem" stories are misleading or stupid, so I'll see about this one.

(read, read, read.....)

Codswallop.

Apparently, the "real problem" is that boys' sports get more money than girls' sports.


ETA: The article relies heavily on a web site, Champion Women, https://titleixschools.com/ . It's an interesting site, but incredibly flawed. In order to demonstrate that discrimination exists, they show that there are schools where males make up a disproportionate share of the student athletes. For example, in my home town high school, females make up 49.9% of the student body, but only 43% of the student athletes. Therefore: discrimination.

[arthwollipot]

Apparently, the "real problem" is that boys' sports get more money than girls' sports.

That is certainly a real problem, yes. But is it the real problem? It is certainly a bigger problem than that of transgender athletes. There are, after all, more girls in sport than there are trans girls.

ETA: The article relies heavily on a web site, Champion Women, https://titleixschools.com/ . It's an interesting site, but incredibly flawed. In order to demonstrate that discrimination exists, they show that there are schools where males make up a disproportionate share of the student athletes. For example, in my home town high school, females make up 49.9% of the student body, but only 43% of the student athletes. Therefore: discrimination.

Why is that not discrimination? Or a better question - why do you think that disparity exists?

[stanky]

that's not much of a disparity.
but it could be girls being smart and sports being dumb.
there's other possibilities for after-school activity