The Real Hawkeye
member
What about the difference between the rhetoric of Austria and that of Switzerland during WWII?
PROOF: Antis Look on Message Boards to Use Our Irresponsible Rhetoric Against Us
- Thread starter cuchulainn
- Start date
- Status
CAnnoneer
Member
Maybe the moderators should lock this thread before cuchulainn causes what he claims he is trying to prevent.
Old Dog
Member
I totally disagree with this statement. I think the rhetoric in question, when it comes to anything pro-2A/RKBA, only stirs the pot, garners our movement much more critical scrutiny, certainly makes us look more aggressive or unbalanced, and, in fact, produces a much stronger response on the part of government and the media than would occur if we maintained a more reasoned, calmer stance.
I've been following this thread off and on ... am I correct in concluding that some here believe that civil behavior and mature, logical and calm speaking and writing by gunowners will NEVER win converts to our cause?
Frankly, some of the posts in this thread amaze and dismay me. It's almost as though some are stating that it doesn't matter how we act or talk -- antis will be antis, and even keeping on the high road won't sway the fence-sitters.
For those who have played sports or any sort or games: do you cheat because your opponents cheat? Do you give up and play sloppily without care for sportsmanship or basic civility simply because you're on the losing side by a large margin and hope of winning is dim? How do you conduct yourself when confronted by bad behavior? Do you reflect bad behavior in return, because it won't matter one whit to your protagonist if you respond politely, reasonably and calmly?
Here's a classic post from someone who has evidently concluded we have no hope for our future:
And to you sir, I say, I respectfully disagree. I've been working with our young people daily for the past twenty-seven years in two careers and a couple part-time occupations. I've raised two intelligent children, both of whom had huge circles of friends. I've taken our young people into combat zones, lived with them 24/7 for months at a time, listened to them, advised them, and yes -- even learned a few things from them.
With the proper mindset, the right approach, logic and facts on one's side -- one can convert almost anyone to a righteous cause.
P.S. Ask Rush? Now, there's an authority on being a role model ...
cuchulainn
Member
I don't know. The fact remains that Hitler backed off because Switzerland made a successful show of power, not because of anything it said.
The Austrians, French, Poles -- unlike the Swiss -- weren't ready to fight. That's why Hitler acted against them. He made the same assumption about the British. He was wrong.
Hitler didn't choose his targets based on who made the most vivid threats, and you know it.
CAnnoneer
Member
I think some of you guys are confused about the nature of the public debate. Anyone I have met that is not a gunowner or does not shoot has a built-in negative reaction towards guns. You can reason with many, and even convince a few, but in the end, when the conversation is over, most revert to their natural state.
So, the only effective way to change things for the better is to convert as many as you can into shooters first, and then into gunowners.
Buy them donuts, pay for their ammo and rentals, distribute prizes, pat them on the back when they can't hit the broad side of a barn, whatever it takes. Many can get converted that way, because now they become that which they have been taught to mistrust, hate, and despise. And so, they see it is not so bad after all, in fact it is fun on many levels. That is what is going to change their mind, nothing else.
Those of you who think they can win any public debate by good behavior, are at best fighting a rearguard retreat action.
So, the only effective way to change things for the better is to convert as many as you can into shooters first, and then into gunowners.
Buy them donuts, pay for their ammo and rentals, distribute prizes, pat them on the back when they can't hit the broad side of a barn, whatever it takes. Many can get converted that way, because now they become that which they have been taught to mistrust, hate, and despise. And so, they see it is not so bad after all, in fact it is fun on many levels. That is what is going to change their mind, nothing else.
Those of you who think they can win any public debate by good behavior, are at best fighting a rearguard retreat action.
CAnnoneer
Member
cuchulainn, so what kind of smokewagons do you have in your collection, by the way?
cuchulainn
Member
You're right, good behavior alone won't win converts. But bad behavior will ensure we lose a bunch. That's the point.
cuchulainn
Member
I already listed them once in this thread, and the question is still irrellevant.
See: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2461394&postcount=120
Carl N. Brown
Member
We have a lot to gain by trying to win converts and
positively influence fence-sitters. We have a lot to
lose if all the outside world sees in us is anger, evem
if some of the anger is justified.
positively influence fence-sitters. We have a lot to
lose if all the outside world sees in us is anger, evem
if some of the anger is justified.
How High a Road?
As to the effects of rhetorical style on potential allies/enemies, it seems to me that any verbal attitude will be useful/harmful/indifferent, sometimes, with some people, in some circumstances - and trying to make a global general rule for all to follow is just playing Blind Men & The Elephant. No one here knows what will work out best; it's all individual opinion, based on inadequate data (like life itself.)
(As for the argument that no tyrant would be deterred by violent rhetoric, though, that seems to imply that a would-be oppressor can safely ignore whatever his targets have to say about him. Whatever happened to "Know the enemy?")
On The High Road, though, I would agree that extreme SHTF/JBT ventings are somewhat harmful, primarily because that's not what we're here for (I thought.) Reason, and thoughtful discussion, may, or may not, sway a lot undecideds; but I came here looking for just that, and threads that do little but vent waste my time.
As to the effects of rhetorical style on potential allies/enemies, it seems to me that any verbal attitude will be useful/harmful/indifferent, sometimes, with some people, in some circumstances - and trying to make a global general rule for all to follow is just playing Blind Men & The Elephant. No one here knows what will work out best; it's all individual opinion, based on inadequate data (like life itself.)
(As for the argument that no tyrant would be deterred by violent rhetoric, though, that seems to imply that a would-be oppressor can safely ignore whatever his targets have to say about him. Whatever happened to "Know the enemy?")
On The High Road, though, I would agree that extreme SHTF/JBT ventings are somewhat harmful, primarily because that's not what we're here for (I thought.) Reason, and thoughtful discussion, may, or may not, sway a lot undecideds; but I came here looking for just that, and threads that do little but vent waste my time.
cuchulainn
Member
Not at all. The Brits ignored the Patriots' rhetoric in 1774, and they got bitten. Maybe they should have listened to it and backed off -- but they didn't. They ignored it.
Tyrants don't pay much attention to the rhetoric of the oppressed.
Thus, I don't put any faith in the notion that violent diatribes keep the grabbers at bay.
cuchulainn
Member
Whether they should or not, they don't. If you've got an example where a tyrant has backed off because those under his toe made threats against him, I'd love to hear about it.
Tyrants back off when other nations demonstrate that they're willing and able to meet force with force (Cuban missile crisis, Switzerland and Hitler). But I've yet to see an example of violent threats from the mob giving a tyrant pause.
If you rant like some slobbering madman on the corner don't be surprised when no one "gets" your message. Hysterical violence fantasies gain us nothing.
No, they don't. Good thing that no one here posts them! I've never seen any hysterics or fantasies, come to think of it. Nor have I seen any violence.
(Hint: words cannot be violent--violence involves action).
I stand corrected on the hysterics, though--there was this fool on Aussieseek I heard about, who wanted gun owners to be shot with their own guns...
RealGun
Member
Well, I can tell you for example, that those who are repeatedly prickly and harassing just wind up on an ignore list. How persuasive is that?
CAnnoneer
Member
<wags his finger> Out of context. <tsk, tsk, tsk>
The gun debate is not an even ground. The antis have a marked advantage, because they appeal to ignorance and fear. Most people simply do not have the attention span or IQ horsepower to break through that. General elections have shown that again and again. The people that can see through it would already be convinced pro-gun pro-liberties, so for them it makes no difference. One is more effectual with the general populace when one is more emotional. Think about history and politics, and you will convince yourself that is the truth.
Meplat
Member
Quite honestly, I played football for eight years, and yes, if an opponent insisted on breaking rules, then I broke as many back as possible. Cheat? No. Return foul for foul? You bet. Bite me in a pile up, and you'd better hope not to find yourself near me in the next pile up. And you know what? It works. I was only bitten twice in eight years, and word got around.
Give up sportsmanship and cilvility simply because I was on a losing side? Never. One of the proudest games I was ever honored to play in was a lopsided loss to a much larger out of division school whose players hit hard, hurt well, but did so in within the framework.
As to how I respond to bad behavior, a lot depends on what that behavior is and what is on the line. Give me the finger in traffic, and you'll most likely get a smile and a nod...perhaps a friendly wave, if your bad mood led to the gesture...certainly an apologetic look if I did indeed do something that violated your driving space.
OTOH, walk up and punch me in the face, and you'd best hope there's not a 2 x 4 handy, as I WILL whack you with it. Pull a knife on me in order to rob me, and you will (pardon the pun) find yourself undergunned.
What you are trying to draw above is a correlation that is so far out of the bounds of reality as to be totally ludicrous. To compare a mere sporting event to the events that are going to affect the rest of our rights and the rights of our descendants from here on out as free human beings is to compare losing a penny to losing one's life. Perhaps the gulf is even broader than that.
Dunno if there are enough people who remember what our first flags looked like before Betsy Ross worked her beautiful artistry, or how much of the blood of those who flew the "Don't Tread On Me" banner still flow in this society's veins...I guess time will tell.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Eight pages is enough. Go off and think about it all. Re-read the thread and then start anew, if you like.
Art
Art
- Status