Point Taken.

Now this is the kind of graphic I love:

Because Ol' Georgie's right!  I can't blame him!  Why the heck would I want to?  Obamacare's working great for me.

Oops.  I think this was supposed to insinuate I hated Obamacare.  Nope, sorry.  Love it.

Congratulations, BO!

Outdated Thinking at Its Finest

Graphics like the following make me mad, because they imply that for everyone, there is one--and only one--route to happiness.

Really?  Is this 1950?  News Flash: girls should marry someone they love, get along with, respect, and with whom they share common values, and that is if they want to marry.  Because you know what, girls?  You don't have to get married.  Ever.

And if you do marry, girls, the reasons to marry are those stated above and not these outdated thoughts of the past.  There is nothing wrong with the woman (or women!) in a relationship having careers and contributing to family income or--GASP--being the sole breadwinners of the home and paying all the bills while the husband is a stay-at-home husband or father.

Yep.  I said it.  Blasphemous, huh?

Face Value: Why Choosing Your Words Matters

Some of the posts of OFWAAR contain wrong or unchecked information.  Some oversimplify the matter at hand.  Others contain partially true information combined with untrue information.  

Then, there's this:  

*scratches head*  Um...okay.  I'm not going to pull punches here.  I know what this graphic (I hope) is trying to say.  What I think its intention is is to convey that the girl in the photo (portraying any woman) would most likely rather have to explain to the police why the intruder in her home has a gunshot wound in his chest rather than be raped and murdered.  And if that's the intent, then yes.  I agree that explaining you committed a shooting in self-defense is a better outcome of being raped and murdered.

But.

Big But.

But why, then, does the graphic not say that?  Instead, it uses the words, "...than to have them explain to my loved ones why I was raped and murdered."   Explain?  Why explain?  I know what the intent (I hope) is of this, but the word "explain" used in this context mirrors the first use of the word "explain" in the graphic, which by definition of the original context used means to "account for (an action or event) by giving a reason as excuse or justification."  This definition of "explain" makes sense in the context of the murder of a home intruder, because any time a murder is committed for a good reason, the person who committed the justifiable murder must give their reasons for why the killing was justified.

However, in the second context, if we apply "explain" to the situation of a rape/murder, this graphic ultimately insinuates that the police would be explaining to the victim's family that the victim was murdered because she didn't defend herself.  After all, if a victim is raped and murdered, the police wouldn't need to "explain" to anyone what happened.  A vicious person forced himself on her and then killed her.  Maybe they'd fill the loved ones in on the details of where the murder happened or when, but explain it to them?  I daresay the parents don't want to hear a "reason as excuse or justification" for why their daughter was violated and killed.  I doubt her husband or children or friends do, either.

You might call that semantics, but here's the thing: semantics matter.  Semantics deals with the meanings of communications.  What you mean matters (For more on this, check out this article), and statements like this one that could (and do often) imply that victims should bear even partial responsibility for being attacked add to the ongoing problem of women who are victimized being afraid to report rapes, to get medical treatment for assaults, and to testify in trials for sexual crimes due to the fear of being blamed and the shame that is inherently bound to crimes that are sexual in nature.

So, if you want to empower women the way I hope this post intends to do, say what you mean and mean what you say.  Words are powerful; they shape communications of ideas.  When you're trying to get your point across, being unclear in meaning can easily sabotage your message, and we all know your message intends to convey to the world that you're right.  If you want people to believe you're right so badly, don't give them a reason not to.   

Bad Intell: When "Citations" Don't Equal Truth

Occasionally, I run across a post that spreads misinformation by skewing facts (and blatantly ignoring others, which they have proven they did since the creator of the graphic obviously researched enough to pick and choose which facts to use in their post) to represent the message the poster wants to send rather than not checking facts at all.

An example:  

So, naturally, I went to the FBI's annual crime statistics database to check up on whether or not this graphic was an accurate representation of the information found in the database the graphic cites.  (What?  You think I'd believe this post just because it claims that the FBI database says something?  No way.  Not when it's so easy to check myself.)  Here's what I found:

While the database has now been updated to reflect crime statistics from the year 2012 instead of 2011 as mentioned in the graphic above, I will cite the updated 2012 data.  Perhaps the 2011 data differed drastically from the 2012 data, but even if it did, the fact that this graphic is still circulating is proof that misinformation is being passed around since obviously the updated data is more relevant (as would be 2013 or '14 when those records are posted).  For the purposes of this post, however, I'll give the 2012 data and let you be the judge as to whether or not the intent of this graphic in 2011 might have been due to a drastic difference in the crime statistics or if it was because the intent was to skew the facts.

However, unfortunately for our poster, in this chart, you can see not only that the total number of homicides in which the weapon was a firearm (any type) in the year 2012 was 8,855, but you can also compare it to the very year this graphic refers to and how in 2011, the total number of homicides committed with a firearm was 8,653. That's a lot more murders than the 323 this graphic seems to claim.  Now, to be fair, this statistic gives the total number of murders involving any type of firearm, so let's just play devil's advocate (see what I did there?) and say maybe the graphic's creator used the vague, open-to-interpretation picture of a gun to mean he or she was citing only the number of murders in which some type of rifle was used as the weapon of choice (this is extremely generous considering that the average reader would most likely interpret the picture to mean, "guns," but in the interest of the benefit of the doubt...).  In that case, the 2012 number of homicides with a rifle identified as the murder weapon of 322 is much closer in line with the 323 the graphic states.  However, unfortunately for the poster, this chart shows us the 2011 number of rifle murders, too.  In 2011, murders committed by some type of rifle is listed as 332.  332 does not equal 323.  Did our poster perhaps accidentally mix up the digits of the accurate number 332?  Even if that were the case, that is still misleading since there is a column of the weapons statistics list on the same FBI database that lists the number of homicides committed with a firearm of an unstated type.  This number of homicides was 1,611 in 2011 and 1,749.  Out of over eight-thousand homicides committed with a firearm in either year, it is reasonable to think that at least some of those listed as unspecified type were committed with a rifle, even if the percentage of rifle use was marginal compared to, say, handgun use.  

And yet, either way, this sheds an entirely new light on this graphic in several ways.  First, it obviously shows the number of firearm homicides to be skewed if the graphic's intention is to convey number of homicides by use of a rifle since it is almost certainly somewhat higher due to the unspecified type of firearm homicides. It also tells us that if the graphic is intended to educate the public about the number of homicides in which guns were used that the graphic's number is an out and out lie.

For the record, "hammer" is not even a category in the database. The category in the database that includes hammers is titled "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)." Since again, we are assuming that this poster's intentions were not to mislead and that either they mistook the blunt objects category for being 'hammers" or that perhaps some version of a 2011 database actually contained a "hammer" category in which the blunt objects category was broken down into types of blunt objects used (regardless of how unlikely that possibility may be), we can compare the number cited in the above graphic (496) with the number of homicides attributed to blunt objects as the weapon.  In 2011, the number of murders committed with a blunt object is shown as 502 (and 2012, 518).  502 is certainly not the same number shown in the graphic above, and we can reasonably assume that if there were 502 murders committed with blunt objects, the chances that all but 6 of those murders were committed using hammers is extremely slim.  In other words, by human error or intentional misrepresentation, this graphic pulls numbers from something other than the material cited on said graphic in order to lend credibility to the claims (my guess about where they pulled said numbers is from their ass, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they found them elsewhere that quoted inaccurate numbers and just took the information to be true without checking).

Either way, no matter what the reason, the database the graphic poster used to lend credibility to the argument the graphic was attempting to make--that guns (or perhaps rifles) shouldn't be banned because they are used to commit less murders than hammers, which aren't banned--in actuality makes the opposite point in that it displays with pretty damning finality that firearms overall are far more deadly by comparison than blunt objects.  In fact, if the flat out number comparison isn't enough for you, in this separate table, you can see where the FBI breaks down homicide deaths from 2012 into percentages based on weapon used in the crime.  Firearms accounted for a total of 69.3% of all homicide deaths in this most recent data, as to where blunt objects (lumped into the category "Unknown or Other Dangerous Weapons" in this particular chart) were implicated in only 12.9% of all homicides.  That means over two-thirds of homicides utilized guns and only slightly more than a third of a third of all homicides utilized blunt objects.  Even less when you consider that the category blunt objects (including hammers) is lumped in with murders using any other unspecified murder weapon.   

long story short here (too late!), this graphic is wrong.  Period.  Check facts before you share, don't spread inaccurate information, and for Christ's sake stop believing everything you see on the internet even if it cites information.  Check the cited places yourself.  People lie, especially to promote their own agendas.  

Bad Intell: A Rumor to Span Centuries

Before the internet existed, before the rampant path of ignorance cut by misinformed graphic posts on Facebook, rumors still made their rounds.  Though, the internet undoubtedly assists those who perpetuate the inaccurate in making sure their rumors continue to spread like wildfire even in the face of an age where confirmation of a story is but a Google search away.

For example: 

Several decades after the Vietnam War ended, American actress Jane Fonda still endures the hatred of many misinformed Americans due to prevalent rumors that she passed covert messages given to her by American prisoners of war during her visits with them to their captors.  She was thus labeled a traitor, and since, has been the butt of internet graphics as above, the object of enmity of any who heard and believed the rumor, and even the victim of people spitting on her at book signings because they bought this ongoing defamation of character.

And all this because people refuse to check the readily-available facts of the situation rather than simply believing what they see and hear.

In the age of information, ignorance is not an acceptable reason to continue to slander another human being. In the age of information, not confirming the details of a situation before you render judgment is not acceptable, either.

Google exists for a reason.  Use it.

Quick Takes: Employers Have Beliefs, Too

I don't like to have words put into anyone's mouth.  

To that effect, I recently saw this:

The quick takes:

1.)  No one said that was ok.  In fact, most people who support artistic expression openly expressed their opinions that this was absolutely tasteless and ridiculous.

2.)  However, no one ever said that this random group of guys who grew beards so they could better promote their reality television show that it wasn't okay for them to pray.  What the general opinion of those who were okay with the backlash against Phil Robertson's anti-homosexual comments did say was that they a.) didn't like the rude (somewhat homophobic) comments of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson during his controversial interview with GQ and b.) when you are a star in the public eye (and your "brand" is owned by someone who places your brand in the public eye), anything you say that is to be viewed/heard by the public is likely to be judged by the public.  If the person who happens to own your brand is not a fan of your personal opinions and feels they do not accurately accept what he or she intends for their network's/company's brand to portray to be judged by said public, you may be fired unless there was a previously-noted agreement that the network/company understood your stance on said issues and had no problem with such.

As such, most people that this graphic is intended to "attack" actually believe per the above example that if their morals dictated such, unless Miley Cyrus had a previous agreement with those representing her and putting forth her songs and image that they acknowledged and accepted that she believed in gyrating against other singers on cable TV, the company or companies representing and marketing her brand would be within their rights to terminate her employment in the event that she did not portray an image cohesive with that cohesive with their desired projection.

Let's don't compare two things that aren't the true concepts at the root of the controversy.  Prayer, as portrayed here, is not under fire.  Portraying an image your employer doesn't condone is.  If Miley's employer is fine with her butt against Robin Thicke's crotch as a part of their brand, that's their prerogative.  Lucky for Miley.

That is why the situation is luck (or lack thereof), not discrimination.  

Soundbite: Low Blow Fail

Sometimes, I don't even know where to start.  So, maybe I'll just start with this ridiculousness that was posted on facebook with the caption, "Sound like anyone else you know?" (i.e., a poor attempt at OFWAAR villifying our current president, whom they dislike in the extreme):

My thoughts:  When Obama institutes policy that begins a mass genocide and people in our own country are rounded up and gassed based on a set of criteria he deems inappropriate and/or undesirable, then we'll talk.  Until then, perhaps it would behoove your cause's credibility to not post graphics which make an unwarranted comparison of our current president (that you dislike), who has not put anyone into a concentration camp or killed any civilian for their heritage or hair color to the single most infamous dictator who perpetuated what may be remembered as the single worst atrocity in human history.  The only times you look less credible are those when you post graphics that try to convey inaccurate, unchecked information with misspelled words.   

Come on, guys.  You're not even trying anymore.