Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The US is moving to include the LGBT community. You can either accept it, and move on, or you can remain bigoted and hateful towards something that in all actuality, you probably don't understand.
That is entirely not the point at all.
You can embrace it, but also disagree with some aspects of it that you find offensive. That does not make you a bigot. That means you have an opinion.
Every year in Philly there is a huge gay pride event, which I've been to several times and we've taken our kids to as well. I don't like seeing almost naked men wearing very skimpy thongs with an American Flag sticking out of their butt. I find that offensive and have gotten vocal about it. Am I bigot because of that? If they asked for legislation to ask to run around with a thong on and a Flag sticking out of their butt and I opposed it, does that mean I'm a bigot?
That's the problem right now. Special interest groups want all or nothing. You are either with them or against them. That's where they start pointing fingers if you disagree with one of their pushes.
This was probably covered, but eh 1st Amendment only protects you from the Government interfering with your speech. Private entities like a Corporation can do what they like around speech, as long as they are not violating other laws, for example around Union Organizing.
So basically, you have no 1st Amendment protections from your Employer..... period. If you violate their policies and they follow their termination guidelines than too bad for you. You should have known the guidelines since you sign off every year or so on them.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2016/04/22 13:30:37
Subject: Re:Curt Schilling fired from ESPN over meme
Special interest groups like gays and LGBT are only asking for equal rights. I don't see why that's a problem for some people, but apparently it is. That being so, I don't see why LGBT people should just shut up and accept attacks against them.
In any case, with Curt Schilling, it doesn't matter whether he's a bigot or not. The general public have got the impression from his antics that he's a bigot. As a public face of ESPN he's become a liability to the brand, so he's got to go, and he's gone.
Kilkrazy wrote: Special interest groups like gays and LGBT are only asking for equal rights. I don't see why that's a problem for some people, but apparently it is. That being so, I don't see why LGBT people should just shut up and accept attacks against them.
In certain instances they want special considerations. If I dressed in nothing but a skimpy thong and ran around the streets of Philly with an American Flag stuck in my butt, I would be arrested for indecency. Try to do that during a Gay Pride Parade and you'll see that when a policeman approaches everyone screams HATE!! I've seen it happen before my very eyes. Then it makes the evening news that "Police disrupt the Gay Pride Parade".
Please explain what equal rights they are looking for when an adult with a penis is trying to go to the bathroom in a women's bathroom.
So basically, you have no 1st Amendment protections from your Employer..... period. If you violate their policies and they follow their termination guidelines than too bad for you. You should have known the guidelines since you sign off every year or so on them.
Absolutely agree. However, if they are following strict policy, then they can't pick and chose who they fire and who they don't for the same offenses. That's a lawsuit in the making.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 14:03:22
2016/04/22 14:27:25
Subject: Re:Curt Schilling fired from ESPN over meme
So basically, you have no 1st Amendment protections from your Employer..... period. If you violate their policies and they follow their termination guidelines than too bad for you. You should have known the guidelines since you sign off every year or so on them.
Absolutely agree. However, if they are following strict policy, then they can't pick and chose who they fire and who they don't for the same offenses. That's a lawsuit in the making.
Great, which there is a legal channel to be followed that Mr. Schilling has ample access to.
So, what are we all arguing about again?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 14:27:38
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2016/04/22 14:29:04
Subject: Re:Curt Schilling fired from ESPN over meme
Kilkrazy wrote: Special interest groups like gays and LGBT are only asking for equal rights. I don't see why that's a problem for some people, but apparently it is. That being so, I don't see why LGBT people should just shut up and accept attacks against them.
In certain instances they want special considerations. If I dressed in nothing but a skimpy thong and ran around the streets of Philly with an American Flag stuck in my butt, I would be arrested for indecency. Try to do that during a Gay Pride Parade and you'll see that when a policeman approaches everyone screams HATE!! I've seen it happen before my very eyes. Then it makes the evening news that "Police disrupt the Gay Pride Parade".
If you're really interested in running around with a flag in your arse, you can go and do it at Gay Pride. If you're not interested, why are you complaining that you're not allowed to do it?
No-one's set up a Straight Pride festival involving running around with flags in people's arses, so we don't know if the police would attempt to shut it down, or what the reaction of the crowd might be.
Please explain what equal rights they are looking for when an adult with a penis is trying to go to the bathroom in a women's bathroom.
The right to go into a bathroom they mentally identify with. Women go into the lavatory called Ladies because they mentally identify with it. I've been into Ladies lavatories a couple of times, when I was desperate, and because I am a man it cost me some mental effort, but I was able to overcome my inhibition. No harm resulted.
This is getting a bit off the topis of Curt Schilling, though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 14:30:28
The right to go into a bathroom they mentally identify with. Women go into the lavatory called Ladies because they mentally identify with it. I've been into Ladies lavatories a couple of times, when I was desperate, and because I am a man it cost me some mental effort, but I was able to overcome my inhibition. No harm resulted.
No, sir. People use the bathroom based on their equipment. Women use the Ladies bathroom because they have a Vagina. Men use the Men's bathroom because they have a Penis.
Ask a male child why they go to the Men's bathroom. They won't say "because I feel like a man". They will say because they have a penis. I have a young son. I'll let you ask him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 14:33:43
What he is saying, Kilkrazy, is that laws are being suspended and not enforced when gay people are running around in thongs with ass flags in *public*....when that would normally be an indecent exposure violation.
And the reason that they are neing suspended, is because the fear that the police will be viewed as "anti gay" or "homophobic" as opposed to actually doing their job and applying the law equally.
Which is also what I was tryjng to discuss with my post...that ESPN is applying unequal treatment to Schilling because he is expressjng a view that is opposite their company view. He did it in a crappy way...but...if they are going to fire people over political views, made in their personal time and personal page...then they shouldn't be able to pick and choose when to discipline or fire someone who makes such statements on company time. But, they are.
The contract usually doesn't day "don't have opinions", they have a rule saying "don't do gak that makes the company look bad".
That gives companies a lot of leeway to decide what opinions make them look bad because they keep a person with that opinion on payroll as a public face of the company.
Sex is your genetic makeup. Your sex is male or female.
Your Gender is your mental identification.
Sorry, but you cannot change your SEX.
Change the appearance of your body all you want..change your mannerisms and behavior and mentality all you want...but your genetic makeup will not change.
Now...
IF someone has gone to the lengths of replacing their penis with a vagina, as well as other femanizing surgeries...then you know what...I am OK with them using the ladies room.
Or if a female surgically alters her body to become that of a male, displaying the male reproductive parts....I am OK with them using the men's room.
The simplest solution is to make individual, one-room "unisex" bathrooms.
Although it doesn't address the issue of community locker rooms.
Anyways...that part of the discussion is better discussed in a different thread.
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2016/04/22 15:02:15
Subject: Re:Curt Schilling fired from ESPN over meme
The right to go into a bathroom they mentally identify with. Women go into the lavatory called Ladies because they mentally identify with it. I've been into Ladies lavatories a couple of times, when I was desperate, and because I am a man it cost me some mental effort, but I was able to overcome my inhibition. No harm resulted.
No, sir. People use the bathroom based on their equipment. Women use the Ladies bathroom because they have a Vagina. Men use the Men's bathroom because they have a Penis.
Ask a male child why they go to the Men's bathroom. They won't say "because I feel like a man". They will say because they have a penis. I have a young son. I'll let you ask him.
There's no difference between the equipment in a male and female lavatory, except the male one has got urinals as well as pans, which are a convenience but far from a necessity..
Co'tor Shas wrote: How is wearing a thong any worse than, say, wearing a bikini? I certainly don't think it's actually indecent exposure.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
I think a lot of the prostests over that kind of stuff in Gay Pride parades is much more about the behavior than the actual sexual orientation. I don't care if people are LGBT, you be you and live your life it'snot a problem to me. Trying to overtly put on display in an over the top manner is going to cause friction and is likely counterproductive. Having a parade float full of people in very revealing BDSM type outfits to show how LGBT they are is just as stupid as the people who open carry AR15s into grocery stores or starbucks to show just how pro2A they are. Antics that are done primarily for shock value and moving the Overton Window further along aren't necessary and when people feel those displays are being imposed upon them they're going to push back.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How is wearing a thong any worse than, say, wearing a bikini? I certainly don't think it's actually indecent exposure.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
I think a lot of the prostests over that kind of stuff in Gay Pride parades is much more about the behavior than the actual sexual orientation. I don't care if people are LGBT, you be you and live your life it'snot a problem to me. Trying to overtly put on display in an over the top manner is going to cause friction and is likely counterproductive. Having a parade float full of people in very revealing BDSM type outfits to show how LGBT they are is just as stupid as the people who open carry AR15s into grocery stores or starbucks to show just how pro2A they are. Antics that are done primarily for shock value and moving the Overton Window further along aren't necessary and when people feel those displays are being imposed upon them they're going to push back.
Feel uncomfortable, perhaps. Illegal? feth no.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/04/22 15:08:32
Subject: Re:Curt Schilling fired from ESPN over meme
There's no difference between the equipment in a male and female lavatory, except the male one has got urinals as well as pans, which are a convenience but far from a necessity..
I can't tell if you're making fun of me or if you seriously think I'm talking about the equipment IN the bathroom. I'm talking about the equipment ON the person. Penis or Vagina. Not urinal or stall actually IN the bathroom.
IF someone has gone to the lengths of replacing their penis with a vagina, as well as other femanizing surgeries...then you know what...I am OK with them using the ladies room.
Or if a female surgically alters her body to become that of a male, displaying the male reproductive parts....I am OK with them using the men's room.
100% agree with this. No arguments from me about this at all.
2016/04/22 15:12:03
Subject: Re:Curt Schilling fired from ESPN over meme
I know I'm guilty myself, but I guess we are done with the actual topic of "private company with morality clause fires employee with unpopular opinion"?
TheMeanDM wrote: What he is saying, Kilkrazy, is that laws are being suspended and not enforced when gay people are running around in thongs with ass flags in *public*....when that would normally be an indecent exposure violation.
And the reason that they are neing suspended, is because the fear that the police will be viewed as "anti gay" or "homophobic" as opposed to actually doing their job and applying the law equally.
Which is also what I was tryjng to discuss with my post...that ESPN is applying unequal treatment to Schilling because he is expressjng a view that is opposite their company view. He did it in a crappy way...but...if they are going to fire people over political views, made in their personal time and personal page...then they shouldn't be able to pick and choose when to discipline or fire someone who makes such statements on company time. But, they are.
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
There's no difference between the equipment in a male and female lavatory, except the male one has got urinals as well as pans, which are a convenience but far from a necessity..
I can't tell if you're making fun of me or if you seriously think I'm talking about the equipment IN the bathroom. I'm talking about the equipment ON the person. Penis or Vagina. Not urinal or stall actually IN the bathroom.
Oh, okay.
Well, anyway, women can use the stalls in a gents. It's only a social convention for them to have a separate room.
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
Look up public lewdness laws. Doesn't require you to be nude to be offensive.
Well, this is it here in NY.
A person is guilty of public lewdness when he intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act (a) in a public place, or (b) in private premises under circumstances in which he may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he be so observed.
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-245-00.html#sthash.FoVFSX05.dpuf
And, again, I don't think that's enough. Either that or I guess we should arrest 40% of college age males.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How is wearing a thong any worse than, say, wearing a bikini? I certainly don't think it's actually indecent exposure.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
I think a lot of the prostests over that kind of stuff in Gay Pride parades is much more about the behavior than the actual sexual orientation. I don't care if people are LGBT, you be you and live your life it'snot a problem to me. Trying to overtly put on display in an over the top manner is going to cause friction and is likely counterproductive. Having a parade float full of people in very revealing BDSM type outfits to show how LGBT they are is just as stupid as the people who open carry AR15s into grocery stores or starbucks to show just how pro2A they are. Antics that are done primarily for shock value and moving the Overton Window further along aren't necessary and when people feel those displays are being imposed upon them they're going to push back.
Feel uncomfortable, perhaps. Illegal? feth no.
In regards to thongs it depends on whether or not butt cheeks qualify as private parts. It's a misdemeanor, it's not like people are getting multiyear prison sentences over it.
Here's the indecent exposure law in NC:
Spoiler:
ยง 14-190.9. Indecent exposure.
(a) Unless the conduct is punishable under subsection (a1) of this section, any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons, except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity, or aids or abets in any such act, or who procures another to perform such act; or any person, who as owner, manager, lessee, director, promoter or agent, or in any other capacity knowingly hires, leases or permits the land, building, or premises of which he is owner, lessee or tenant, or over which he has control, to be used for purposes of any such act, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(a1) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire shall be guilty of a Class H felony. An offense committed under this subsection shall not be considered to be a lesser included offense under G.S. 14-202.1.
(a2) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in the presence of anyone other than a consenting adult on the private premises of another or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(a4) Unless the conduct is punishable by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in a private residence of which they are not a resident and in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age who is a resident of that private residence shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(a5) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person located in a private place who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person with the knowing intent to be seen by a person in a public place shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a woman may breast feed in any public or private location where she is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breast feeding.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local government may regulate the location and operation of sexually oriented businesses. Such local regulation may restrict or prohibit nude, seminude, or topless dancing to the extent consistent with the constitutional protection afforded free speech. (1971, c. 591, s. 1; 1993, c. 301, s. 1; c. 539, s. 124; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1998-46, s. 3; 2005-226, s. 1; 2015-250, ss. 2, 2.1, 2.3.)
I'm not advocating for people to be arrested or even cited for their clothing or lack thereof in parades. Whatever the law says should be consistently enforced.
What I am advocating is that people think carefully before they decide on how they want to behave in public and how they portray themselves in the name of whatever cause or agenda they are advocating.
And, again, I don't think that's enough. Either that or I guess we should arrest 40% of college age males.
Someone has to complain. If they do at a frat party for example and there is cause to believe the complaint is legitimate, then yes, those chaps could be arrested.
So to go full circle.
I complain at a Frat Party, the police show up and arrest some people, nothing on the evening news.
I complain at a Gay Pride Parade, the cops show up, try to arrest someone, suddenly, the evening news shows up, and an uproar ensues because people HATE. Makes the evening news as "Police hate Gays. Try to break up the Gay Pride Parade. Homophobe bystander sparks riot". All because someone complains about a lewd public act, which is ILLEGAL. I've actually seen this happen.
Equal rights?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 15:31:20
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
Thank you so much for posting this.
I have seen people fired for expressing personal thoughts and experiences on their FB accounts.
One worker has an anaphylactic reaction to bleach...the contact and even smell of it could potentially kill her. People are aware of this. Work was aware of this.
At work, someone in her area cleaned with bleach and she had to go to use her epi-pen.
On her FB account she ranted about what happened..without saying "my employer" or "my co workers" or any really identifying information. Granted...it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that this happened at work.
She was fired because of that post.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 15:34:09
d-usa wrote: A lot of people are very uncomfortable seeing KKK rallies.
People do get upset by KKK rallies. We don't make it illegal to be a member of the KKK and we don't make it illegal for the KKK to hold rallies in public spaces but we also don't try to publically shame people who object to KKK rallies to be silent and not voice their displeasure because their opinion is "wrong."
People should be able to discern the difference between objecting to how people conduct themselves at a public event and objecting to the actual people holding the public event. Perception affects reality and how you advocate for a cause is just as important as the cause itself when you're trying to affect public opinion.
