The pinko liberal, the fudd, the joo, etc.
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
It is impossible for us to defeat the enemy directly. You and I are not going to start a civil war, win it and be able to agree on anything with whatever coalition of convenience develops to effect that. Therefore, we should try to win the PR and the culture war. One losing strategy in a culture war is offending potential allies or neutrals by offending them with overly broad labels. You do understand our self-interest in this, right?
QuestionEverything
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 178
The basic issue being discussed here is tribalism. Humans have a natural tendency to gravitate towards "tribes" and distrust outsiders, and tribalism often overlaps with politics.
Some political issues are not tribal in nature. The effort to restore the Fourth Amendment is supported by a wide spectrum of people, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to survivalists. The Second Amendment, though, has become associated with a particular culture and particular ideology. It doesn't matter how much of a rational basis there is for the RKBA, if someone decides before the fact that "I can't own or support guns because I'm not a tobacco-chewing Bubba," the battle has already been lost.
Libertarians will see parallels between this and the drug issue. Some people think "I'm no long-haired dope-smoking hippie, there's no way I could support drug legalization!," despite the violations of liberty brought about by the drug war. In both cases, logic and reason don't enter into the thought process. It's all about acting in a way that's consistent with your tribal identity. To prevent this, you have to separate the issue from the "tribe."
Some political issues are not tribal in nature. The effort to restore the Fourth Amendment is supported by a wide spectrum of people, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to survivalists. The Second Amendment, though, has become associated with a particular culture and particular ideology. It doesn't matter how much of a rational basis there is for the RKBA, if someone decides before the fact that "I can't own or support guns because I'm not a tobacco-chewing Bubba," the battle has already been lost.
Libertarians will see parallels between this and the drug issue. Some people think "I'm no long-haired dope-smoking hippie, there's no way I could support drug legalization!," despite the violations of liberty brought about by the drug war. In both cases, logic and reason don't enter into the thought process. It's all about acting in a way that's consistent with your tribal identity. To prevent this, you have to separate the issue from the "tribe."
I wouldn't just say that it's a matter of offending them.
It's also a matter of us automatically labeling them "enemies" when they really are not.
They could potentially be allies, if we do our part to win the PR war like you say Oleg.
If we label them enemies, and they label us enemies, then we both lose. We need to keep in mind that we're all Americans, and this is a true-American issue.
QuestionEverything - you don't need to be a drug-user to see potential benefits in legalizing drugs. That's a whole other thread though. I've pondered the issue from an economic standpoint though, that's for sure. However, that all aside - exactly. We need to separate the issue/idea from the tribe as you say.
It's also a matter of us automatically labeling them "enemies" when they really are not.
They could potentially be allies, if we do our part to win the PR war like you say Oleg.
If we label them enemies, and they label us enemies, then we both lose. We need to keep in mind that we're all Americans, and this is a true-American issue.
QuestionEverything - you don't need to be a drug-user to see potential benefits in legalizing drugs. That's a whole other thread though. I've pondered the issue from an economic standpoint though, that's for sure. However, that all aside - exactly. We need to separate the issue/idea from the tribe as you say.
Brian Dale
Member
Yes, I'd be foolish to deprive myself of an ally by writing someone off in my own mind, or by convincing them that they don't want to be associated with me, before I find out what they actually think.
DakotaDude
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 12
I'll take this opportunity to identify myself as a "liberal." (Really, I'm an Independent, but I side with Democrats on a lot of issues.) I'm new to shooting, and new to THR and other gun forums. The hostility shown toward people like me often makes me want to stop reading.
It's fine with me if you want to blast people who are pushing anti-gun legislation, but it bothers me to see it framed as a Democrat-vs.-Republican issue. Sure, there are more visible Democratic gun-grabbers than visible Republican gun-grabbers, but that doesn't mean that Democrats are evil and Republicans are good. When you categorize things that way, you punish pro-gun Democrats, and reward anti-gun Republicans.
It bugs me when threads go off-topic into non-gun-related areas like immigration reform, welfare, education, religion, Middle East politics, etc. Since I don't agree with many members of this forum on those subjects, it makes me feel isolated and unwelcome. The rampant racism and acceptance of it also bugs me.
I don't expect it to bother you that I "feel bad," but consider that you are driving people away who could be your allies. For every person like me who toughs it out, there are probably others who just decide that gun owners are a bunch of right-wing extremists who need to be watched closely.
Partisanship and non-gun politics don't need to play roles in this forum. Why can't we just talk about guns?
Whiny liberal complaint finished.
It's fine with me if you want to blast people who are pushing anti-gun legislation, but it bothers me to see it framed as a Democrat-vs.-Republican issue. Sure, there are more visible Democratic gun-grabbers than visible Republican gun-grabbers, but that doesn't mean that Democrats are evil and Republicans are good. When you categorize things that way, you punish pro-gun Democrats, and reward anti-gun Republicans.
It bugs me when threads go off-topic into non-gun-related areas like immigration reform, welfare, education, religion, Middle East politics, etc. Since I don't agree with many members of this forum on those subjects, it makes me feel isolated and unwelcome. The rampant racism and acceptance of it also bugs me.
I don't expect it to bother you that I "feel bad," but consider that you are driving people away who could be your allies. For every person like me who toughs it out, there are probably others who just decide that gun owners are a bunch of right-wing extremists who need to be watched closely.
Partisanship and non-gun politics don't need to play roles in this forum. Why can't we just talk about guns?
Whiny liberal complaint finished.
ReadyontheRight
Member
Good call Oleg.
Hopefully the latest issue with Jim Zumbo will help more folks realize that RKBA is not about hunting.
Hopefully the latest issue with Jim Zumbo will help more folks realize that RKBA is not about hunting.
I said it before and I'll say it again. I hope Zumbo winds up in a dark alley with a tin can begging for pennies, with it thirty below, and ten feet of snow. If Nugent wants to embrace him, at the same time slandering firearm owners, he can join him. Being nice doesn't win against people trying to legislate agains firearm owners. Pure fear of their very exhistance does.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
DakotaDude
Sure.
As long as the guns we talk about are the ones we still own.
As long as the ones we still own are whatever we damn well please.
Until that's been secured, there will also be some discussion of those barriers to ownership.
Sure.
As long as the guns we talk about are the ones we still own.
As long as the ones we still own are whatever we damn well please.
Until that's been secured, there will also be some discussion of those barriers to ownership.
chas_martel
Member
Oleg, I am not sure I totally agree with you on
not labeling people. What is wrong with the concept
of if the show fits wear it. What is wrong with educating
people about how their "group" is wrong? This always being
as much concerned with "feelings" as facts is a losing
proposition, IMO. Just look at the Republican party,
worrying about "feelings" is what has done them in.
I'm a Jew and I am hear to tell ya, virtually every Jew
I know or have meet is WRONG on the topic of self
defense. It steams from their belief that Yahweh does
not work thru us, that he is always an external force.
OH and I am the dirtiest of Jews, I believe the
Messiah did indeed already visit us. I'm a Jew nonetheless.
not labeling people. What is wrong with the concept
of if the show fits wear it. What is wrong with educating
people about how their "group" is wrong? This always being
as much concerned with "feelings" as facts is a losing
proposition, IMO. Just look at the Republican party,
worrying about "feelings" is what has done them in.
I'm a Jew and I am hear to tell ya, virtually every Jew
I know or have meet is WRONG on the topic of self
defense. It steams from their belief that Yahweh does
not work thru us, that he is always an external force.
OH and I am the dirtiest of Jews, I believe the
Messiah did indeed already visit us. I'm a Jew nonetheless.
beaucoup ammo
Member
Giuliani's gun control tendencies while in New York State and Local Politics might very well be the same he'd force on the nation if elected president,IMO.
As pointed out in this thread many times, the desire for 2A protection transcends the political spectrum and we should all pull together on this. Infighting makes no sense if a cause is to be successful.
Regardless of affiliation, I'll get behind the candidate with the most vocal Pro Second stance.
As pointed out in this thread many times, the desire for 2A protection transcends the political spectrum and we should all pull together on this. Infighting makes no sense if a cause is to be successful.
Regardless of affiliation, I'll get behind the candidate with the most vocal Pro Second stance.
BryanP
Member
Unlikely. Just because we are gun owners who (mostly) agree about the 2nd amendment doesn't mean we agree about other things
But to Oleg's original point, the name calling gets a little old. I find myself drifting away from this site more and more, and that's part of the reason.
Sharps-shooter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 488
In this corner.. all the gun owners in the world!
and in this corner...everybody without guns! :ding ding:
I'm betting on the people with guns. But I think the point is that not agreeing on other issues keeps us apart on second ammendment issues, when it needn't.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
chas, the problem isn't the grouping, its the naming of the groupw with an insulting term.
If we are trying to get these people to our side, then the worst thing we could do is call them an insulting name to get their attention.
believe it or not, pinko commie and Fudd are insultiing to the people they are aimed at.
If we are trying to get these people to our side, then the worst thing we could do is call them an insulting name to get their attention.
believe it or not, pinko commie and Fudd are insultiing to the people they are aimed at.
Green Lantern
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,665
A note about liberals - I was grouping NC Sen. Boseman into that group for trying to make the CCW law here MORE repressive...
Then I read that she also wants to restrict gun use in VIDEO GAMES as well.
That's censorship. And I think I have the "liberal" view on that myself - IF YOU'RE OFFENDED BY IT, DON'T WATCH/READ/PLAY IT!
So I don't think she's a liberal - she's just nuts! Fair enough?
************************
I don't think I'll EVER understand why some people hold a deep anti-Jew sentiment....
But from what I understand....some people that hold that sentiment are also pro-2A. Which brings up all kinds of "uncomfortable" topcs for being a united RKBA front...!
************************
So I guess what to take away from this is to take the "High Road" when discussing liberals that support gun control and hunters that only care about THEIR hunting guns?
(YES, there are people that would claim to be Republicans, even/or "conservatives" that are gun-grabbers (Bloomberg anyone) - just sticking to the topic at hand)
Fair enough. Just so long as we don't mistake "civility" for "TRUST." An enemy of the 2A is an enemy of the 2A, whether an outside enemy (the former) or an inside enemy (the latter).
Converting an enemy is better than defeating an enemy, but you HAVE to do one or the other. In Zumbo's case, it looks like we might even be able to do both!
Then I read that she also wants to restrict gun use in VIDEO GAMES as well.
That's censorship. And I think I have the "liberal" view on that myself - IF YOU'RE OFFENDED BY IT, DON'T WATCH/READ/PLAY IT!
So I don't think she's a liberal - she's just nuts! Fair enough?
************************
I don't think I'll EVER understand why some people hold a deep anti-Jew sentiment....
But from what I understand....some people that hold that sentiment are also pro-2A. Which brings up all kinds of "uncomfortable" topcs for being a united RKBA front...!
************************
So I guess what to take away from this is to take the "High Road" when discussing liberals that support gun control and hunters that only care about THEIR hunting guns?
(YES, there are people that would claim to be Republicans, even/or "conservatives" that are gun-grabbers (Bloomberg anyone) - just sticking to the topic at hand)
Fair enough. Just so long as we don't mistake "civility" for "TRUST." An enemy of the 2A is an enemy of the 2A, whether an outside enemy (the former) or an inside enemy (the latter).
Converting an enemy is better than defeating an enemy, but you HAVE to do one or the other. In Zumbo's case, it looks like we might even be able to do both!
kb2iaw
Member
I think ,the high road is high class , and should be kept that way...i always belived you can catch more flies with honey than ...than viniger.
You are not the only one, believe me.
Personally, I believe that this type of rampant ignorance, and it's repeated and unabashed display, is one of the most dangerous forces threatening gun rights in America. It is easy to convince the public that the gun lobby is extremist when when there are enough of these folks spouting their poisonous garbage.
I highly doubt they feel bad. I highly doubt they care at all. Many of these people WANT conflict. It makes them feel good to jeer at the middle ground and watch them run... as if that somehow makes them more resolute.
The truth is, I doubt many of these people have the ability to defend or debate their position intelligently... there has been far too much time invested in developing a database of rhetoric and one-liners; too much time talking about what they are going to do when "the government" comes.
Whenever I speak to a group, I make the point that we have to stop talking about liberals and conservatives. We alienate those who are good Second Amendment supporters who also consider themselves to be Liberal.
I always have people come up to me later to say thanks -- that they are Liberal, but don't feel comfortable around all the nasty Liberal-bashing talk.
If the goal is to WIN, we can't affort to alienate supporters.
Unfortunately, some of the loudest folks on our side don't realize the goal is to win. They think the goal is to FORCE the other side to admit that we are right.
Ain't gonna happen, and in the process, they drive people who are in the middle to the other side.
I always have people come up to me later to say thanks -- that they are Liberal, but don't feel comfortable around all the nasty Liberal-bashing talk.
If the goal is to WIN, we can't affort to alienate supporters.
Unfortunately, some of the loudest folks on our side don't realize the goal is to win. They think the goal is to FORCE the other side to admit that we are right.
Ain't gonna happen, and in the process, they drive people who are in the middle to the other side.
So what we're supposed to do, if I've got this right, is to stop using descriptive terms when talking about a group of people (either in our community or out of it). Because, we might insult people who are too dim to understand that our generalities are describing a specific person, and not everyone in the group, yes??
So, instead of saying "Fudd", we should say "A hunter who is ignorant of the RKBA and pursues selfishly his sport with no regard for anyone else".
Sounds like a mouthful.
Instead of "liberal", we should say "Someone who is left-leaning politically, but may or may not own and support guns and their ownership".
Whew.
I think I'll stick to the easy terms. Dunno if my wrists will be able to tackle all of the typing it's going to take to accurately describe people when a single, easy-to-recognize word will suffice.
It's almost like we're asking to become [scary music] Politically Correct [/scary music]
I guess that will work, since the anti-gunners will play by our noble rules too, right??
So, instead of saying "Fudd", we should say "A hunter who is ignorant of the RKBA and pursues selfishly his sport with no regard for anyone else".
Sounds like a mouthful.
Instead of "liberal", we should say "Someone who is left-leaning politically, but may or may not own and support guns and their ownership".
Whew.
I think I'll stick to the easy terms. Dunno if my wrists will be able to tackle all of the typing it's going to take to accurately describe people when a single, easy-to-recognize word will suffice.
It's almost like we're asking to become [scary music] Politically Correct [/scary music]
I guess that will work, since the anti-gunners will play by our noble rules too, right??
Patriot-Brewer
Member
Yeah, labels may offend some people, but it works both ways. Some of you complain about the liberal "hatred" in the gun community, but we're just expressing our distrust towards our primary opposition.
Then you post on here telling us we're racists because of the immigration issue, among others. Oh boy, do I have some more choice words for your hypocritical, double-speak, politically correct nonsense you spout as reason.
The ILLEGAL ALIEN problem and the resultant complaining about it is NOT a race issue. It's a law issue, it's an economic issue, it's a quality of life issue, it's a safety issue, etc etc. That is not to say all illegals are bad people, but they are here illegally, period.
Stop calling me a racist.
:banghead: Any while you liberals here are at it, stop with the "extremist, survivalist, exteme right wing, religious wacko, insensitive, uncaring, starve the children big mean angry bully man" labels too.
"gun nut" is OK!
Then you post on here telling us we're racists because of the immigration issue, among others. Oh boy, do I have some more choice words for your hypocritical, double-speak, politically correct nonsense you spout as reason.
The ILLEGAL ALIEN problem and the resultant complaining about it is NOT a race issue. It's a law issue, it's an economic issue, it's a quality of life issue, it's a safety issue, etc etc. That is not to say all illegals are bad people, but they are here illegally, period.
Stop calling me a racist.
:banghead: Any while you liberals here are at it, stop with the "extremist, survivalist, exteme right wing, religious wacko, insensitive, uncaring, starve the children big mean angry bully man" labels too."gun nut" is OK!
Green Lantern
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,665
Glad SOMEONE said it!
Though I can see now why this forum is meant **JUST** for 2A issues - keeps us more focused (and united) that way.
Why would an anti-gunner do any such thing? Why would they stop? It serves their purpose exceptionally well. That is the whole point.
While they may personally irritate you to no end, there is absolutely no need to integrate issues such as welfare, ethnicity, immigration, religion, etc... into the discussion of 2A rights. It CAN happen completely independently of these issues, and it CAN happen completely independently of the use of derisive labels such as fudd, sheeple, Rambo, etc...
When you display behavior that can be interpreted by your opponent as racist or extremist, regardless of whether or not it really is, rest assured that it WILL be. That is BAD for you and me.
Gun owners are already faced with a severe image problem... we don't need one more ounce of negative attention. Yes, this negative perception is based mostly in ignorance, but it doesn't matter. It motivates policy nonetheless.
It is incumbent upon us as responsible gun owners to examine our presentation very carefully so as to ensure that we present what we really mean, and so as to avoid (as much as possible) misrepresentation of our intent. Take the following quote for example:
What is the implication here?
"Gun owners are so politically resolute that they will overcome all challenges to their cause?"
Or...
"We'll get it our way or we'll shoot you."
Folks, sometimes there is a bit more to free speech than simply exercising the right to say whatever the h**l you want, whenever the h**l you want to say it.
Think about it... think about what other people take away from what you say.
beaucoup ammo
Member
Oleg makes an extremely important point. If an Anti calls me by a malicious or insulting name, they've lost me at the get go. I figure this person's reasoning is composed of slurs and nothing more to support his / her argument.
Conversely, if I refer to them as "pinko liberal", "fudd", etc. my chances of engaging them in meaningful conversation, let alone converting them, plunge to nil, IMHO.
Every time we refer to an "Anti" in one of these derogatory terms in a public venue, like here on the net, we do our cause a disservice. In the privacy of my own home..well, I'll say what I please! That may very well be seen as hypocritical..but it's honest and, I think, in the best interest of those seriously involved in advancing the Pro 2A agenda.
I'm being trite, but "The High Road" says it all.
Conversely, if I refer to them as "pinko liberal", "fudd", etc. my chances of engaging them in meaningful conversation, let alone converting them, plunge to nil, IMHO.
Every time we refer to an "Anti" in one of these derogatory terms in a public venue, like here on the net, we do our cause a disservice. In the privacy of my own home..well, I'll say what I please! That may very well be seen as hypocritical..but it's honest and, I think, in the best interest of those seriously involved in advancing the Pro 2A agenda.
I'm being trite, but "The High Road" says it all.
To me the only distinction for the RKBA is pro or antigun.
It is the right wing section of the RKBA that demands that being progun also must demand ideological purity towards right wing social causes.
That's why the use of 'liberal' as a generic curse is flat out stupid. You are not going to preserve gun rights by insisting it is the domain of white, christian, socially conservative males. If you think so, you are stupid.
It's that simple. So lose gun rights by insisting on your little club of the 'right' ideology.
It is the right wing section of the RKBA that demands that being progun also must demand ideological purity towards right wing social causes.
That's why the use of 'liberal' as a generic curse is flat out stupid. You are not going to preserve gun rights by insisting it is the domain of white, christian, socially conservative males. If you think so, you are stupid.
It's that simple. So lose gun rights by insisting on your little club of the 'right' ideology.
- Status
