PDA

View Full Version : For Christ's sake, tone down your responses to the media!


Manic Moran
03-23-2009, 10:53 PM
I've just read the SDSU editor's response to some of the responses their original article posted. And you know what? In at least one aspect, I agree with her.

So many times I have read people posting on comments sections, or just copying here what they sent, and it was rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, sheer disgust and hatred at the ignorance displayed by the authors of the articles.

WAKE UP!

You are doing us no good whatsoever. You're better off just shutting the hell up, and waiting for someone with some semblance of self-control to make a more rational response. Reading that SDSU Editor's Response, she made no mention at all of any of the presumably worthwhile points which may have been made in return. No, instead she was able to use our own writings to beat us over the head as to how irrational we are, because we prove it when we write!

Rule #1: Perception is Reality. If the opposition's perception is that you're a redneck, racist, conservative hick, anything you say is going to be taken to reinforce that stereotype unless you take pains to avoid it.

Some hints, based on things I have seen typed by pro-gun types (Not all from this site)

1) Be polite. There are many words in the English language. So many that you don't need to use 'colourful metaphors', to quote Spock. Their usage gives the impression that you have neither the education nor mental capacity to use the rest of the language available to us. Why should they listen to such a person? Related: Do not use childish names for politicians.

2) Stay away from Mexicans. I don't care how much you believe the threat posed by illegals is to your safety, the same point can be made without being seen to be a xenophobic racist. (You may not be one, or see yourself as one. Refer to Rule #1)

3) Stay away from Muslims. Related to hint #2. Your own distinguishing between radicals and the majority muslim population may not be well conveyed through the vitriol.

4) Stop trying to insult the author. Firstly, it's childish. Secondly, it achieves absolutely nothing except making you feel better. Who's going to listen to anyone who insults them? It doesn't matter how much else you write, how accurate or lucid. It goes staight to the 'recycle' bin. On a related note, who's going to give weight to someone who staight hurls insults at someone else?

5) Remember the audience. If you're posting publicly, your words are not going to be read solely by the target. The target may be a lost cause, and completely un-convertable to our cause. Everyone else who reads those comments, though, will draw their own conclusions about the author of a letter/comment, and whether they even care what he has to say. That 'Everyone Else' is who you should be writing for.

6) You prizumably lernds' english in skool. Look back over that which you have typed before hitting 'send,' make sure you haven't made any glaring spelling or grammatical errors. They can really make one look uneducated. And learn correct apostrophe usage. OK, that last one is probably less critical: Given how frequently they are abused, there's a great chance a mis-use would go unremarked. It's just a pet peeve of mine I wanted to get in!

I'm sure people can add a few more hints.

If these don't apply to you, then fantastic. Keep doing what you are doing. If they do, then think about the image that you are attempting to project to the populace at large. Do you want to hold the high ground? Then act like you do.

NTM

hoffmang
03-23-2009, 11:07 PM
Can I just add a HUGE plus 1 to the above!

Try instead to make your response about the racist roots of gun control. Compare registration and licensing to poll taxes and literacy tests.

The Deacons for Defense and Justice are the best argument for gun rights since Concord - and far harder for the other side to dismiss.

-Gene

CCWFacts
03-23-2009, 11:09 PM
Good points there! Especially about Mexicans. Think what you will about illegal immigrants but when people make comments about Mexicans being the problem, that looks really bad.

Doheny
03-23-2009, 11:09 PM
I've just read the SDSU editor's response to some of the responses their original article posted.

Thanks for the heads up...got a link?

truthseeker
03-23-2009, 11:10 PM
Manic Moran, DUUUUDE!!!!!

I give you some props for that!!!

BigDogatPlay
03-23-2009, 11:22 PM
+1 on the OP take. Well reasoned and well said.

As much as we might want to lash out at the idiocy that drives much of the anti-gun movement the only way we will prevail is by sticking to facts. The fact is that much of modern "gun control" in America has it's roots in Jim Crow and oppression of minorities. Blaming Mexicans, or whoever, is not going to win us any friends.

Dark Paladin
03-23-2009, 11:25 PM
While I do agree with the points that the OP raised, I do have to question how well intentioned was SDSU's editor?

For all we know they focused on the rabid responses (which may or may not have been posted by Calgunners), and totally ignored the rational arguments because it doesn't fit within their agenda (which may or may not have been posted by Calgunners).

For her to consider one of the Calgunner's open (and polite) invitation to Ashlie to go to a local public range as a private hunting trip in the middle of nowhere. . . you have to wonder if they even understand what we are saying (as opposed to just zoning us out since we don't fit within their agenda).

hoffmang
03-23-2009, 11:27 PM
Her intent is horrible. Don't sink to it. Eviscerate her position without stooping to her level.

-Gene

Liberty1
03-23-2009, 11:36 PM
Don't write for her, write for all the fence sitters reading your response. Your arguments have to look "better" then hers in their eyes. Write toward them.

Manic Moran
03-23-2009, 11:52 PM
For all we know they focused on the rabid responses (which may or may not have been posted by Calgunners), and totally ignored the rational arguments because it doesn't fit within their agenda (which may or may not have been posted by Calgunners).

Maybe, but if we didn't give those rabid responses, they can't very well focus on them, can they?

NTM

radioburning
03-23-2009, 11:58 PM
Being insulting, abrasive, condescending, and coming across as irrational zealots does nothing but make us look like people who shouldn't own guns in the first place.

Oh yeah, spelling like a 4th grader doesn't help either.

Manic Moran
03-24-2009, 12:05 AM
Oooh.. I'll add that one.

NTM

N6ATF
03-24-2009, 12:21 AM
Can I just add a HUGE plus 1 to the above!

Try instead to make your response about the racist roots of gun control. Compare registration and licensing to poll taxes and literacy tests.

The Deacons for Defense and Justice are the best argument for gun rights since Concord - and far harder for the other side to dismiss.

-Gene

Tried to make it about racism, didn't bring those specific things up though. Not sure if the site crashed mid-submit either. We'll see when the first batch of comments get reviewed and published.

CABilly
03-24-2009, 12:26 AM
Wake up morans! Their after are guns and will not stop at nothing!

(Excellent post!)

jdberger
03-24-2009, 12:34 AM
Be polite.
Point out obvious flaws in the argument.
Assume that they've never researched anything and were duped by the Bradys.
If possible, provide links or references to opposing data.
READ "Deacons for Defense" and anything by Don Kates.
Be polite.
Check your spelling.
Be persistent.

Knight
03-24-2009, 12:34 AM
I added a link to this topic in the other thread about the article (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2213771).

MarioS
03-24-2009, 12:36 AM
I highly agree with #6. Grammar and spelling can go a long way...especially their mistakes. Many people will automatically disregard your argument.

Dr. Peter Venkman
03-24-2009, 04:23 AM
They deserve no quarter. I refuse to play their anti-2nd Amendment games by their own rules. I'm all for rational and logical beatdowns.

professorhard
03-24-2009, 11:16 AM
Do you think we could do something like put an AD in the SDSU paper for a free firearms familiarization class one weekend. Maybe make a trip to the range with Ruthie and her crew so she could see that were not some crazy nut cases but really just ordinary people enjoying a freedom granted to us?

Can'thavenuthingood
03-24-2009, 12:13 PM
For those anguishing about using Google.
http://www.africanaonline.com/orga_deacons_for_defense.htm

Vick

artherd
03-24-2009, 12:27 PM
Her intent is horrible. Don't sink to it. Eviscerate her position without stooping to her level.

-Gene

+1,000,000.

Pretend you're in court. Whoever froths at the mouth first, looses.

burl broderick
03-24-2009, 12:32 PM
.

I would like to humbly add that in addition to letters to an editor or author of a gun related article,
general posts on Calguns, as well as other gun sites are regularly read and digested by the public
and have at times been randomly quoted in the media.

Along with the xenophobia and grammatical slaughters, all the incessant obsession with "Lib-tards"
and how evil Obama is, etc. gets old quickly. We have an anti-gun administration in the White House.
OK. We get it. Please take a deep breath and consider what you can do about it wisely and effectively.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the folks who rabidly rant the most about divisive politics aren't even
old enough to vote.

Calguns is an incredible wealth of extremely well thought out concepts about people's rights, technical
& legal information and smart humor. Let's keep it that way and make a greater effort to leave the
childish trash talk to the Airsoft, video game and white-supremacist sites.

Thanks.


.

Monte
03-24-2009, 12:44 PM
Very well put. The points made here cannot be stressed enough. Can we make this a sticky?

joeyriv
03-24-2009, 01:08 PM
Don't write for her, write for all the fence sitters reading your response. Your arguments have to look "better" then hers in their eyes. Write toward them.
I completely agree with this. It's really a waste of time to target the actual author/editor. It's the masses that we can either repeal to, or affirm everything they've printed. We've got to do a better job at it.

Vtec44
03-24-2009, 02:15 PM
+1 to the OP. It doesn't help our cause if we are being so confrontational. Please try to keep it polite, informative, and leave the door open if they would like to learn more. If we can convert a member of the media over, it would help us a lot in spreading the message. If we can't, at least it will break the stereotype of "gun owners".

Jbox
03-24-2009, 02:42 PM
+10000000 I knew there were people on this site that got it.

Mikeb
03-24-2009, 02:46 PM
Do you think we could do something like put an AD in the SDSU paper for a free firearms familiarization class one weekend. Maybe make a trip to the range with Ruthie and her crew so she could see that were not some crazy nut cases but really just ordinary people enjoying a freedom granted to us?


Professor, I agree these folk could use some range time. But let me take exception with your use of the term "freedom granted to us". It seems to me that the whole point of RTKBA is that the right of self defense is a basic human right and any government that seeks to control or abolish that basic human right is suspect, if not out right criminal.
take care
Mike

Bad Voodoo
03-24-2009, 02:48 PM
I've just read the SDSU editor's response to some of the responses their original article posted. And you know what? In at least one aspect, I agree with her.

Did someone sign-off as a Calguns member or something? Good message. Perhaps you should have sent it to the editor you referenced.

The Wingnut
03-24-2009, 03:03 PM
I can't agree with the OP more...how much ammunition are we feeding the stereotype of 'inbred, uneducated hicks clinging to guns and religion' when we respond in an emotional manner?

Slow down, think about what you're writing, double-check your points by researching them, cite sources, spell check, and grammar check!

A'sDad
03-24-2009, 03:20 PM
While #2 and #3 are nice sentiments I would also vote to protect our Judea-Christian roots and not take the Lord's name in vain in our posts.

sfpcservice
03-24-2009, 09:23 PM
Everyone in this thread is missing the main issue...... Doc Brown was not killed in Back to the Future III.

anthonyca
03-24-2009, 09:59 PM
Good points, thank you.

The best is when in a debate one calmly states facts such as Gene's example of racist orgins of gun control and the opposition just stops and stares then gets horribly upset and starts yelling about the CHIIILLLLDREEEN!!!!

DDT
03-24-2009, 10:16 PM
.
Along with the xenophobia and grammatical slaughters, all the incessant obsession with "Lib-tards"
and how evil Obama is, etc. gets old quickly. We have an anti-gun administration in the White House.
OK. We get it. Please take a deep breath and consider what you can do about it wisely and effectively.


I agree 100%.

There is enough hatred and vitriol spewed forth on this forum to reinforce any negative stereotype one looks for.

N6ATF
03-24-2009, 10:50 PM
Everyone in this thread is missing the main issue...... Doc Brown was not killed in Back to the Future III.

He was killed in one timeline, before Marty went back to disrupt it.

pullnshoot25
03-25-2009, 02:25 AM
Hot diggity daffodil, Manic Moran! I completely agree.

I still got dibs on taking them shooting, MUAAHAHAHAHHH!