Kind of Blued
Member
Mine has a bayonet mount should I run out of words!
Words as Weapons... examples please..
- Thread starter tntwatt
- Start date
- Status
Mine has a bayonet mount should I run out of words!
denfoote
Member
I saw an old episode of X-Files, last week, where the villain pointed his finger like a gun at people, said bang, and they died!!
I guess that represents the ulitimate word as weapon!!
I guess that represents the ulitimate word as weapon!!
bogie
Member
"thousands of rounds of ammunition" - well, tens of thousands of .22, but only a few thousand each of centerfire...
Oh, and...
"grenades" - hey, they make cool lamps!
"artillery shells" - ditto
Oh, and...
"grenades" - hey, they make cool lamps!
"artillery shells" - ditto
nyggis
Member
How about: Chuck Norris!!!
sm
member
Clip.
Would someone explain to me how MSM and Politicians were able to make a "Evil Weapon" word out of Clip ?
I mean what did some housewife do, cut too many coupons?
Some fella cut his hedges too low?
I know, I will really give MSM and Politicians something to worry about.
I am probably older than most reporters today, so this will be fun.
Mag is the word from the late 60's and into the 70's, so bring it back...
"Onlookers said the SS 396 was yellow, with black racing strips, sporting Cragar Mags, wide 60's, Hurst Shifter...as he pulled away from the 'Cuda..."
Good grief Margo! Them Cragar Mags are downright evil....*snicker*
What until they find out about "open headers", that ought to bust some brain cells...
*Lets get it on dude!*
Would someone explain to me how MSM and Politicians were able to make a "Evil Weapon" word out of Clip ?
I mean what did some housewife do, cut too many coupons?
Some fella cut his hedges too low?
I know, I will really give MSM and Politicians something to worry about.
I am probably older than most reporters today, so this will be fun.
Mag is the word from the late 60's and into the 70's, so bring it back...
"Onlookers said the SS 396 was yellow, with black racing strips, sporting Cragar Mags, wide 60's, Hurst Shifter...as he pulled away from the 'Cuda..."
Good grief Margo! Them Cragar Mags are downright evil....*snicker*
What until they find out about "open headers", that ought to bust some brain cells...
*Lets get it on dude!*
loop
Member
The answer to the original question is relatively long and involved. I was a newspaper editor for about 20 years and then became the editor of a business periodical.
The first part of the answer is that newspaper people come from liberal middle-class homes. They are hoping to change the world. They go to a liberal arts institution, graduate and go to decently- (not well-) paying job where they are surrounded by people of a similar ilk.
They advance because they please their superiors who are from the same background. They see this and suck up to their bosses.
No. 2, in the journalism business we have to stuff a lot of words into limited space. Therefore, we try to find words with as few letters as possible to express a thought. There is a word count and a letter count.
For example, a story may have a word count of 300 words. Each word is five characters long. The letter W is 1.5 letters. The letter I is .5 letters. This is due the amount of space they use. Most letters, like A, B, C, R, Y, use one space. But, a vertical letter like I (i) takes half a space because they are narrower. W uses a space and a half because it is wider, even if it is a w and not a W.
The word "rifle" uses three and a half spaces. The word "weapon" uses six and a half spaces.
In a headline I may choose weapon to make the lines break evenly. In a story I'll probably go with gun (three spaces) or rifle (three and a half [ifl are half-point letters]).
Journalism is all about pounding 10 pounds of s*** into a 5-pound bag.
No. 3, in terms of PR - PR is part of marketing. What PR folks don't understand about news folks is - we ain't buying it. In news we have no adjectives or adverbs. With any luck the person we interview has some adjectives and adverbs. If we want to slant a story we make sure the person we interview has some adjectives.
I can make any story come out the way I want it to come out. It's easy.
OTOH, so can all of my recently-graduated cohorts - and for the most part they are liberal.
Words as weapons? Yup. People spend money, big money, every day because of what I wrote.They also pocket their money because of what I write.
The Second Amendment was written so I/we could exercise the First.
It is very strange to KNOW I can have a lot more influence over the lives of others by typing a few words than with my .45 ACP.
Words as weapons - all I have to do is find one person to give me the right words and I can turn them into an authority.
My business magazine will have stories about the "recession proof" gun industry and a custom holster maker in the next issue. As an editor all I have to do is control the viewpoint - easy.
"Common Sense" carried much more weight than any .60 caliber "Brown Bess" and still does.
My apologies to J, PR programs don't understand journalism. Marketing doesn't count. Most important thing is realize that as a journalist I ain't buying - first adjective you lost me - let alone five out of the first 15 words.
In the end, I win. Thousands of people read my words and take them to heart every month.
The really strange thing about it is that I am an expert. People actually pay to hear me speak and they pay to read my words.
Back, again, to the original post, it really doesn't matter - I win. Because we have the Second Amendment I can exercise my First Amendment rights. As long as we have the Second we will have the First.
We, each and every one of us, must keep up the fight.
They are inextricably tied together.
I get paid to write. That's about $1,000-worth of words.
In the end the word is mightier than the sword, the .357 Magnum, the .45 ACP, the .50 BMG or any other caliber.
Words win; you don't drop the hammer unless you have the words in your head.
The first part of the answer is that newspaper people come from liberal middle-class homes. They are hoping to change the world. They go to a liberal arts institution, graduate and go to decently- (not well-) paying job where they are surrounded by people of a similar ilk.
They advance because they please their superiors who are from the same background. They see this and suck up to their bosses.
No. 2, in the journalism business we have to stuff a lot of words into limited space. Therefore, we try to find words with as few letters as possible to express a thought. There is a word count and a letter count.
For example, a story may have a word count of 300 words. Each word is five characters long. The letter W is 1.5 letters. The letter I is .5 letters. This is due the amount of space they use. Most letters, like A, B, C, R, Y, use one space. But, a vertical letter like I (i) takes half a space because they are narrower. W uses a space and a half because it is wider, even if it is a w and not a W.
The word "rifle" uses three and a half spaces. The word "weapon" uses six and a half spaces.
In a headline I may choose weapon to make the lines break evenly. In a story I'll probably go with gun (three spaces) or rifle (three and a half [ifl are half-point letters]).
Journalism is all about pounding 10 pounds of s*** into a 5-pound bag.
No. 3, in terms of PR - PR is part of marketing. What PR folks don't understand about news folks is - we ain't buying it. In news we have no adjectives or adverbs. With any luck the person we interview has some adjectives and adverbs. If we want to slant a story we make sure the person we interview has some adjectives.
I can make any story come out the way I want it to come out. It's easy.
OTOH, so can all of my recently-graduated cohorts - and for the most part they are liberal.
Words as weapons? Yup. People spend money, big money, every day because of what I wrote.They also pocket their money because of what I write.
The Second Amendment was written so I/we could exercise the First.
It is very strange to KNOW I can have a lot more influence over the lives of others by typing a few words than with my .45 ACP.
Words as weapons - all I have to do is find one person to give me the right words and I can turn them into an authority.
My business magazine will have stories about the "recession proof" gun industry and a custom holster maker in the next issue. As an editor all I have to do is control the viewpoint - easy.
"Common Sense" carried much more weight than any .60 caliber "Brown Bess" and still does.
My apologies to J, PR programs don't understand journalism. Marketing doesn't count. Most important thing is realize that as a journalist I ain't buying - first adjective you lost me - let alone five out of the first 15 words.
In the end, I win. Thousands of people read my words and take them to heart every month.
The really strange thing about it is that I am an expert. People actually pay to hear me speak and they pay to read my words.
Back, again, to the original post, it really doesn't matter - I win. Because we have the Second Amendment I can exercise my First Amendment rights. As long as we have the Second we will have the First.
We, each and every one of us, must keep up the fight.
They are inextricably tied together.
I get paid to write. That's about $1,000-worth of words.
In the end the word is mightier than the sword, the .357 Magnum, the .45 ACP, the .50 BMG or any other caliber.
Words win; you don't drop the hammer unless you have the words in your head.
Loop,
I loved your post. Perhaps we are moving a bit off-topic, but since the undercurrent of this discussion IS about all of our interest in the tools and tactics of the gun-control dialogue, I cannot help but to believe that this advances the gunowner community. I'd like to respond/comment on your above post.
Before I begin....
Loop wrote:
My friend, you have ABSOLUTELY nothing to appologize to me about. The undercurrent of any of my posts that refer to PR is outlining what I percieve as unethical attempts at manipulation. You'll likely not find anyone more critical of the PR industry than me.
In many regards, this is no different than the PR industry. I was solidly the ONLY conservative in my entire program.
I really like that.
While I agree that PR is marketing-- the selling of ideas and viewpoints-- my program was actually under the Department of Mass Communication. Here, that was the same as Journalism was in. Our Marketing Department was under Business.
I am glad to hear that you guys aren't buying it. In fact, many of my professors said you didn't. PR doesn't count on you buying it. They count on you being overwhelmed with work.
They count on you coming up on a deadline and simply not having the time or resources to re-do their press release. A great number of press releases are printed practically verbatim-- only condensed to address the space constraints that you have mentioned.
We were taught to do our best to write press releases as concise as possible in the hopes that an overworked and overwhelmed newspaper writer will simply see your press release as a quick way to meet a deadline and submit it as it is.
Because of this, it was required that we took journalism courses in our masters.
But you see.... that is were you start getting really close to us. News Writers are not as objective as they would like us to believe.
One of my professors always said that whenever a Journalist moved into PR, it was said that they "moved to the Dark Side." Sadly, for some, it was a short trip.
Some things seem universal. It was the same for me.
The Pen is mighter than the Sword... and the Pen-gun is an AOW.
But the "right" person is always a subjective concept that is usually dependant on the slant of the article or the goal of the Journalist. That's where we get into trouble.
Pffft.... 5 out of 15?.... the Amateurs...
While I don't think of it as a "battle" between the journalist and PR guy, I can see what you mean. Often-- on some issues-- the Journalist and the PR guy are likely on the same page and are willing accomplices. In this, I mean those that operate for causes rather than corporations.
I actually hope that Journalist DO win. When those selling a lop-sided truth win, we all lose.
-- John
I loved your post. Perhaps we are moving a bit off-topic, but since the undercurrent of this discussion IS about all of our interest in the tools and tactics of the gun-control dialogue, I cannot help but to believe that this advances the gunowner community. I'd like to respond/comment on your above post.
Before I begin....
Loop wrote:
My friend, you have ABSOLUTELY nothing to appologize to me about. The undercurrent of any of my posts that refer to PR is outlining what I percieve as unethical attempts at manipulation. You'll likely not find anyone more critical of the PR industry than me.
In many regards, this is no different than the PR industry. I was solidly the ONLY conservative in my entire program.
I really like that.
While I agree that PR is marketing-- the selling of ideas and viewpoints-- my program was actually under the Department of Mass Communication. Here, that was the same as Journalism was in. Our Marketing Department was under Business.
I am glad to hear that you guys aren't buying it. In fact, many of my professors said you didn't. PR doesn't count on you buying it. They count on you being overwhelmed with work.
They count on you coming up on a deadline and simply not having the time or resources to re-do their press release. A great number of press releases are printed practically verbatim-- only condensed to address the space constraints that you have mentioned.
We were taught to do our best to write press releases as concise as possible in the hopes that an overworked and overwhelmed newspaper writer will simply see your press release as a quick way to meet a deadline and submit it as it is.
Because of this, it was required that we took journalism courses in our masters.
But you see.... that is were you start getting really close to us. News Writers are not as objective as they would like us to believe.
One of my professors always said that whenever a Journalist moved into PR, it was said that they "moved to the Dark Side." Sadly, for some, it was a short trip.
Some things seem universal. It was the same for me.
The Pen is mighter than the Sword... and the Pen-gun is an AOW.
But the "right" person is always a subjective concept that is usually dependant on the slant of the article or the goal of the Journalist. That's where we get into trouble.
Pffft.... 5 out of 15?.... the Amateurs...
While I don't think of it as a "battle" between the journalist and PR guy, I can see what you mean. Often-- on some issues-- the Journalist and the PR guy are likely on the same page and are willing accomplices. In this, I mean those that operate for causes rather than corporations.
I actually hope that Journalist DO win. When those selling a lop-sided truth win, we all lose.
-- John
The Tourist
member
loop said:
A true statement and the biggest reason I am skeptical on what I read.
First, I'm tired of the hypocrisy. A yuppie with his toys, modern clothes, gadgets, SUV's and sports cars, plastic food containers and money frittered in constant dining out leaves a lot bigger "carbon footprint" than my Harley. However, given the chance, my bike is not only vilified, but chosen for constrictive legislation.
The truth is that the yuppie doesn't want to change the world, he wants to change my world.
To the crux of this debate, a yuppie's view of the things outside of his sphere is tantamount to his feelings of being chosen last for softball. Anything that does not make him the center of the universe must be crushed.
But the one skill he has is the ability to "talk you to death." He's no meteorologist, but he quotes statistics on global warning. He has never fired a pistol, but seems to have memorized Chucky Schumer's diary. I doubt he can drive a stick shift, but he's an expert on the internal combustion engine.
Mr. Loop, in my world he is known as a "newb" or a "poser." In other words, he wears all of the right clothes but his Sportster is pristine from limited use.
So he lashes out with the only weapon he will ever master--hot air.
As to the problem here in this debate, he has convoluted the spoken word so often and to such an extent that most of it is simply dismissed as hyperbole. We label his ilk "spin doctors." We have come to expect a politician to have hired a professional speech writer to even corrupt the clear thought even further.
Perhaps he should simply get off his hiney, go to the gym, and develop something other than his jaw. It has gotten so bad that if I recognize certain journalists in the newspaper, I simply skip over them.
This "word weapon" concept is of no value if I just leave it unused in the quiver.
siglite
Member
I have to say that this discussion between Loop and Jwarren has been enlightening. Combined with the concepts outlined in Barry Glassner's (beware, Glassner's a die-hard gun-grabber) Culture of Fear, it serves to illustrate the mechanisms and means by which words are used to sculpt the thought processes of the masses.
Glassner's premise is simply, "Fear Sells." And by "sells," he means it sells EVERYTHING. Fear is used to sell votes. To sell products and services. To sell budget requests. And certainly to sell advertising space. His finding is that fear is the most powerful motivating emotion possessed by human beings. It is superior to love, patriotism, and even hatred. Fear sells, period.
If you accept this premise, it explains many things in marketing, journalism, and politics. Someone above mentioned "hidden gun." Scary. "Assault weapon." Hmm? "Assault is scary." The explanation for the use of these terms is simply fear. Fear attracts eyeballs to stories, and thus to advertisements. And if the eyeballs see the advertisement, they may very well purchase the advertised product, service, or yes, even politician (with a vote).
We in the firearms community are not innocent here. How many ads have you seen in gun magazines and on TV (think outdoor channel and places that carry firearms shows) which feature the scary burglar? Fear of attack. Fear of random violence. Fear of gun-grabbing politicians (hello, NRA?) etc...
I'd be very interested in Jwarren and Loop's comments on the "fear factor" in this war of words. I'd also be interested in how it can be utilized and turned back around to help our cause more.
Glassner's premise is simply, "Fear Sells." And by "sells," he means it sells EVERYTHING. Fear is used to sell votes. To sell products and services. To sell budget requests. And certainly to sell advertising space. His finding is that fear is the most powerful motivating emotion possessed by human beings. It is superior to love, patriotism, and even hatred. Fear sells, period.
If you accept this premise, it explains many things in marketing, journalism, and politics. Someone above mentioned "hidden gun." Scary. "Assault weapon." Hmm? "Assault is scary." The explanation for the use of these terms is simply fear. Fear attracts eyeballs to stories, and thus to advertisements. And if the eyeballs see the advertisement, they may very well purchase the advertised product, service, or yes, even politician (with a vote).
We in the firearms community are not innocent here. How many ads have you seen in gun magazines and on TV (think outdoor channel and places that carry firearms shows) which feature the scary burglar? Fear of attack. Fear of random violence. Fear of gun-grabbing politicians (hello, NRA?) etc...
I'd be very interested in Jwarren and Loop's comments on the "fear factor" in this war of words. I'd also be interested in how it can be utilized and turned back around to help our cause more.
The Tourist
member
siglite said:
If we utilize it ourselves, and it works, we must simply brace ourselves for a "second tide" of the same semantic game. The best way to hobble these guys is to simply proffer the truth.
I'll give you an example. Since the 1970's, the manner in which we treat women has changed dramatically. So much so that if you approach and date women as I did legally at the worksite during this earlier period, you can now be sued. I met, dated and started a valid relationship with a women during that time that would get me sent to HR now for sensitivity training or termination.
Sounds pretty serious, doesn't it?
Go buy a motorcycle magazine. You cannot even buy a can of cheap wax in a bike rag without finding a biker babe wrapped around the logo.
Hey, guess why? Because it works!
The left is never going to abandon the only tool they have that works. If socialists tried to defend their postion with The Bill of Rights, The Federalist Papers, actual FBI Uniform Crime Statistics or even the Bible, they would have lost their cause for personal disarmament years ago.
Hence, they vilify everything. To them, the Bill of Rights is "collective." The Bible only uses "parables." Even the successful, documented use of firearms to save one's life is simply "The Dodge City Cowboy Mentality."
In fact, you can probably look for even stronger invective as the election nears. What else do they have?
siglite
Member
Yeah, which is well... my point. Presenting the bare, unembellished truth and logic relies on our McNews (with fries) society to bother to think. Convincing people (who have it better than our ancestors could have possibly dreamed) to think is clearly a challenge. If they did think, the fear tactic would NOT work.
So this poses a moral dilemma. We either learn from the tactics which clearly work on most of the population, or do we risk a noble death by sticking purely to the facts and logical arguments?
Please note that I'm not advocating one way or the other. I'm asking an honest question that's been floating around in my head for a couple of years now.
sm
member
Great discussion!
loop, I appreciate your added input along with JWarren and The Tourist.
I was born in the mid 50's and was raised to "investigate and verify"; meaning, never take something for what is written, or heard on the radio, and later TV.
loop's excellent post, supports what mentors and elders were sharing and passing forward, those with the gift of words and language, writing skills, and with radio voice and TV presence, can and do influence society, as that is exactly what they are paid to do.
Perceptions is something I have posted about many times around here.
What perception do you give, and what perception do you want to give?
Kennedy - Nixon televised debate is a great example from history.
TV was still a new medium.
Nixon, had a heavy beard, often times called "5o'clock shadow".
Kennedy, was younger, had a family name, and had ties with folks in TV, meaning "investigated and verified" what "perceptions" come through a TV set, are different from what one sees in real life.
Most have heard the saying "TV adds ten pounds".
Kennedy-Nixon televised debate gave "perceptions" , the non-verbal language did Nixon in.
He had a 5 o'clock shadow and his suit did not come off well on TV.
Kennedy on the other hand, had shaved, and was groomed, and his suit looked good on TV.
Many did not remember then what the words were used in the debate, instead the perceptions of how these two looked and Kennedy is remembered for winning that debate.
Kennedy was young, handsome and had charisma, that perception was conveyed and stuck in minds by his appearance on TV.
Anytime one heard him on the radio, or read his words in a newspaper, that "image" or "perception" was stuck in the minds of those having seen that TV debate.
Nixon, had the negative image portrayed.
Charles Heston is passed, and is remembered for his good looks and words going way back, to when he was younger.
Spartacus , and his role in that movie is remembered by older folks...
What do you see in your mind when you read "From my cold dead hands!"
Do you see Heston holding up a firearm?
loop, I appreciate your added input along with JWarren and The Tourist.
I was born in the mid 50's and was raised to "investigate and verify"; meaning, never take something for what is written, or heard on the radio, and later TV.
loop's excellent post, supports what mentors and elders were sharing and passing forward, those with the gift of words and language, writing skills, and with radio voice and TV presence, can and do influence society, as that is exactly what they are paid to do.
Perceptions is something I have posted about many times around here.
What perception do you give, and what perception do you want to give?
Kennedy - Nixon televised debate is a great example from history.
TV was still a new medium.
Nixon, had a heavy beard, often times called "5o'clock shadow".
Kennedy, was younger, had a family name, and had ties with folks in TV, meaning "investigated and verified" what "perceptions" come through a TV set, are different from what one sees in real life.
Most have heard the saying "TV adds ten pounds".
Kennedy-Nixon televised debate gave "perceptions" , the non-verbal language did Nixon in.
He had a 5 o'clock shadow and his suit did not come off well on TV.
Kennedy on the other hand, had shaved, and was groomed, and his suit looked good on TV.
Many did not remember then what the words were used in the debate, instead the perceptions of how these two looked and Kennedy is remembered for winning that debate.
Kennedy was young, handsome and had charisma, that perception was conveyed and stuck in minds by his appearance on TV.
Anytime one heard him on the radio, or read his words in a newspaper, that "image" or "perception" was stuck in the minds of those having seen that TV debate.
Nixon, had the negative image portrayed.
Charles Heston is passed, and is remembered for his good looks and words going way back, to when he was younger.
Spartacus , and his role in that movie is remembered by older folks...
What do you see in your mind when you read "From my cold dead hands!"
Do you see Heston holding up a firearm?
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Good topic all.
Allow me to clarify a bit about fear and my perceptions of its use.
Fear doesn't sell anything. Fear makes you do something.
In this case, it makes you buy something. Or, something closer to my own field of study, fear makes you give some stranger your bank/login other infomation; i.e., a phishing attempt.
"Dear Mr. JWarren,
There has been a recent attempt at using your Bank of Louisiana credit card for an unauthorized purchase. Therefore, we have temporarily suspended your account until we can verify your information. Just follow this link and log in normally to your account within the next two days, otherwise we will be forced to permanently suspend your account and withhold any money currently in that account.
Sincerely,
Ima Lowlife, CSO
Bank of Louisiana"
Except my letters have far better grammar and spelling than the typical scare-tactic phishing attempt does.
The sad part is, PEOPLE STILL FALL FOR IT.
My daughter is 12 and has a myspace page and just yesterday got some of these phony email type messages, so I did a little PSA about phishing and how to avoid them.
And again, as Arfin has in his sig (I think it's him) "words mean stuff." We all are surrounded by jargon and technical terms depending on our specific fields of endeavor; but it's amazing that I have to say the s**t works when it comes to the general population and firearms.
My parents are perfect examples of this. My dad pointed out to me the other day an article in the local paper about how the local cops are getting a bunch of bran-new AR-15's because SOME police chiefs SOMEWHERE said that there's an arms race with criminals. Wow! It must be true! We need fully (semi)automatic assaultive weaponrifles to stop this OVERWHELMING WAVE OF CRIME!!!!!!sslkdjf...11
In this article, they quoted fully automatic firearm stats (600rpm cyclic, blah blah) and made disingenuous comparisons to regular semi-auto rifles.
My dad literally thinks that "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are synonymous.
I had to spend over twenty minutes trying to explain the simple difference between them. I sure hope he got it. I was reduced to restating two sentences over and over again.
Allow me to clarify a bit about fear and my perceptions of its use.
Fear doesn't sell anything. Fear makes you do something.
In this case, it makes you buy something. Or, something closer to my own field of study, fear makes you give some stranger your bank/login other infomation; i.e., a phishing attempt.
"Dear Mr. JWarren,
There has been a recent attempt at using your Bank of Louisiana credit card for an unauthorized purchase. Therefore, we have temporarily suspended your account until we can verify your information. Just follow this link and log in normally to your account within the next two days, otherwise we will be forced to permanently suspend your account and withhold any money currently in that account.
Sincerely,
Ima Lowlife, CSO
Bank of Louisiana"
Except my letters have far better grammar and spelling than the typical scare-tactic phishing attempt does.
The sad part is, PEOPLE STILL FALL FOR IT.
My daughter is 12 and has a myspace page and just yesterday got some of these phony email type messages, so I did a little PSA about phishing and how to avoid them.
And again, as Arfin has in his sig (I think it's him) "words mean stuff." We all are surrounded by jargon and technical terms depending on our specific fields of endeavor; but it's amazing that I have to say the s**t works when it comes to the general population and firearms.
My parents are perfect examples of this. My dad pointed out to me the other day an article in the local paper about how the local cops are getting a bunch of bran-new AR-15's because SOME police chiefs SOMEWHERE said that there's an arms race with criminals. Wow! It must be true! We need fully (semi)automatic assaultive weaponrifles to stop this OVERWHELMING WAVE OF CRIME!!!!!!sslkdjf...11
In this article, they quoted fully automatic firearm stats (600rpm cyclic, blah blah) and made disingenuous comparisons to regular semi-auto rifles.
My dad literally thinks that "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are synonymous.
I had to spend over twenty minutes trying to explain the simple difference between them. I sure hope he got it. I was reduced to restating two sentences over and over again.
John,
I just got it and replied. I'll be getting something together today for you.
As I said in that PM, Bernays was a "unique" individual. He did not seem to allow himself be burdened with details like morals. He was largely responsible for polishing Rockefeller's image in the aftermath of machinegunning down striking coalminers and their families-- women and children included.
But if you really want to get a good one, Joesph Geobbels was a great study. That was Hitler's Propaganda Minister and he was responsible for much of the success of Nazism. He committed suicide in Hitler's bunker at the end.
-- John
I just got it and replied. I'll be getting something together today for you.
As I said in that PM, Bernays was a "unique" individual. He did not seem to allow himself be burdened with details like morals. He was largely responsible for polishing Rockefeller's image in the aftermath of machinegunning down striking coalminers and their families-- women and children included.
But if you really want to get a good one, Joesph Geobbels was a great study. That was Hitler's Propaganda Minister and he was responsible for much of the success of Nazism. He committed suicide in Hitler's bunker at the end.
-- John
Are referring to the supposed "neutrality" ethic of only reporting the news? If journalist didn't buy into the PR then why are the articles and news casts so scewed.
siglite said it best(paraphrased) Fear sells. From the news I see and read, journalist have bought it just as bad as the masses. I specifically remember the recent news cast about the church shooting where the female stopped the bg. The male news caster tried to say that a gun in the right hands stopped the violence from getting worse. They immediately cut away from him to the female news caster who grimaced at the distaste of the idea and mumbled a "that's ridiculous" type of statement. She has most heartily bought. And it is what the antis are selling.
A journalist who writes a story about guns has the ability to slant it any way they want. Loop even said "it's easy".
This means journalist are choosing to put us as gun owners and the 2a in a bad light. This means either they have bought into the PR stories provided by all the antis or they have absolutely zero integrity and print only what sells.
Words are definately weapons. The problem is that those who have mastered the skill are coming from the middle class liberals. We need more warriors of words.
ReadyontheRight
Member
.....gungungungungungungungungungun.....SUPPRESSOR
gungungun..............gungungungungungunSUPPRESSOR
gungungungungungungungungungungungunSUPPRESSOR
gungungungungungungungungungungun......SUPPRESSOR
.......gungungun....g..........n
......gungungun.......u.......u
.....gungungun..........n...g
....gungungungungungun
....gungungun
....gungungun
....gungungun
High-Cap
Magazine
High-Cap
Magazine
High-Cap
Magazine
High-Cap
Magazine
High-Cap
Magazine
FunderB - I have now made your gun EVIL
with a "silencer" and "high capacity clip" that "extends out of the gun".
gungungun..............gungungungungungunSUPPRESSOR
gungungungungungungungungungungungunSUPPRESSOR
gungungungungungungungungungungun......SUPPRESSOR
.......gungungun....g..........n
......gungungun.......u.......u
.....gungungun..........n...g
....gungungungungungun
....gungungun
....gungungun
....gungungun
High-Cap
Magazine
High-Cap
Magazine
High-Cap
Magazine
High-Cap
Magazine
High-Cap
Magazine
FunderB - I have now made your gun EVIL
with a "silencer" and "high capacity clip" that "extends out of the gun".ReadyontheRight
Member
We all better watch out.
The mere possession of that EVIL word gun will make antis think we might e-mail it to a school.
The mere possession of that EVIL word gun will make antis think we might e-mail it to a school.
sm
member
Sad thing is...
...firearm owners use these gun words to divide themselves.
They "qualify" or "rationalize" what firearms they have and purpose for having them.
Be these handguns, rifles or shotguns.
"They ought to ban them tactical shotguns, they don't belong on a dad-gum skeet or trap field nohow".
"What the hell a feller need a black evil AR for, they too good for a Mini-14?
Why a Mini 14 works fine down on the farm and all..."
"Well if the durn fools would learn to shoot and hit what aiming at, they would not need a Hi-cap mag..."
MSM and Politicians pick up jargon and sentiments such as above and add even more spin to it.
Take that .223, for some reason fired from a AR it is just plumb evil and can travel umpteen miles and do such destructive damage...
From a Mini-14, just a handy little ctg farmers and ranchers use for pest control so fruits, veggies and other food stuffs can make it to market ...
I do not personally own a TV, so my use of one is limited and often to watch a old movie or the like.
Coming up, we had Black & White TV and only 3 channels.
Movies were Black and White too.
There was none of this "razzle-dazzle" , computer enhanced technology like today.
News Folks reported news.
Actresses and Actors could act, as writers could write scripts, TV shows, Movies and similar.
Now what if TV were to go back to Black & White?
News would not show all the pretty colors, and the computer enhanced technology would be less.
Try something, if your TV allows this, adjust your TV to show only Black & White, and watch a news show, or some special television show about crime or something.
Folks I run with, took my suggestion, and trust me, without Color, and computer enhancements, the Viewing is awful!
One is not "affected" by the sensationalism , near as much.
Now go find an old News Reel, or old News program recorded with a newscaster of yesteryear, there will that much difference in what one gets in the quality of reporting and how one feels about viewing the news.
i.e.
JFK being shot in Dallas.
Walter Cronkite is whom I watched back then, as I was in the 3 rd grade when that happened.
Black and White of course, as that is what we had back then.
Find a copy of that , view it, and compare that to today's take on reporting news, and how firearms were viewed by MSM , Politicians, and how even later, GCA of '68 being geared up, was presented by MSM and Politicians.
One teaches one how to treat them - anon.
Have we firearm owners taught MSM and Politicians how to treat us?
...firearm owners use these gun words to divide themselves.
They "qualify" or "rationalize" what firearms they have and purpose for having them.
Be these handguns, rifles or shotguns.
"They ought to ban them tactical shotguns, they don't belong on a dad-gum skeet or trap field nohow".
"What the hell a feller need a black evil AR for, they too good for a Mini-14?
Why a Mini 14 works fine down on the farm and all..."
"Well if the durn fools would learn to shoot and hit what aiming at, they would not need a Hi-cap mag..."
MSM and Politicians pick up jargon and sentiments such as above and add even more spin to it.
Take that .223, for some reason fired from a AR it is just plumb evil and can travel umpteen miles and do such destructive damage...
From a Mini-14, just a handy little ctg farmers and ranchers use for pest control so fruits, veggies and other food stuffs can make it to market ...
I do not personally own a TV, so my use of one is limited and often to watch a old movie or the like.
Coming up, we had Black & White TV and only 3 channels.
Movies were Black and White too.
There was none of this "razzle-dazzle" , computer enhanced technology like today.
News Folks reported news.
Actresses and Actors could act, as writers could write scripts, TV shows, Movies and similar.
Now what if TV were to go back to Black & White?
News would not show all the pretty colors, and the computer enhanced technology would be less.
Try something, if your TV allows this, adjust your TV to show only Black & White, and watch a news show, or some special television show about crime or something.
Folks I run with, took my suggestion, and trust me, without Color, and computer enhancements, the Viewing is awful!
One is not "affected" by the sensationalism , near as much.
Now go find an old News Reel, or old News program recorded with a newscaster of yesteryear, there will that much difference in what one gets in the quality of reporting and how one feels about viewing the news.
i.e.
JFK being shot in Dallas.
Walter Cronkite is whom I watched back then, as I was in the 3 rd grade when that happened.
Black and White of course, as that is what we had back then.
Find a copy of that , view it, and compare that to today's take on reporting news, and how firearms were viewed by MSM , Politicians, and how even later, GCA of '68 being geared up, was presented by MSM and Politicians.
One teaches one how to treat them - anon.
Have we firearm owners taught MSM and Politicians how to treat us?
The Tourist
member
yokel said:
That figures, I am an outdated throwback to the 1980s, decades before that time actually.
The blame game is still the same. The modern day yuppie wants the same things in the same way and vilifies the same people as ever before. Why does Al Gore own an SUV? Because he's a hypocrite. Other yuppies who snivel about my bike charge their electric cars by dynamos run by coal.
During the early 1970s, a fellow biker and veteran of three wars, Col. Robert McBride, used to fly jet aircraft in the south central Wisconsin area. He told me that the biggest polluter wasn't Oscar Mayer or Harley-Davidson or Master Lock. No, he told me, the biggest plume of sooty coal pollution stemmed from the UW-Madison Physical Plant. He could discern this plume in his fighter most of the way to Milwaukee--a span of 60 miles.
As you'll remember, the UW-Madison campus was the one of the three most liberal colleges of the turbulent 1960's. Yikes, doctor heal thyself.
So when a liberal speaks, I hum the theme song from "Gilligan's Island" until he shuts up. Other than JFK, I've never known a liberal policy that ever made life better. It simply over-taxed people like me trying to build a house and life, and then patted itself on the back.
searcher451
Member
If you want to seriously begin a words-as-weapons discussion, you might start with these:
right-wing
left-wing
liberal
conservative
Democrat
Republican
Plenty more where those came from, too.
right-wing
left-wing
liberal
conservative
Democrat
Republican
Plenty more where those came from, too.
ctdonath
Member
In western NY, an indian/native-american/indigenous tribe had a gas station, and advertised it on TV. Always struck me that they actually ended every ad with "there's no water in our gas!"
- Status
