"Stand Up to 'Stand Your Ground'" Video

[ezkl2230]

The Today show briefly highlighted this Youtube video calling for overturning SYG. A so-called "re-enectment" of the shooting using cherry-picked portions of the situation.

And yes, we already know that SYG had nothing to do with Zimmerman's case, but libs never let the facts get in the way of their agenda. They want to make the world safer for criminals.

 

[escapedthematrix]

Reminds me of the movie The Princess Bride where the Inigo Montoya tells Vizzini "You keep using that word.... I do not think it means what you think it means" Refering to the word "inconceivable" which is uttered by the character at least a dozen times. All great movies aside, People clearly do not understand syg laws and its obvious the the creators of that video are playing to the majority of people's ignorance to generate an emotional reaction. The body count they show at the end somehow is trying to convey that there is an epidemic of "victims" being killed thanks to syg laws. Does anyone even watch The Today Show anymore?

 

[BluesStringer]

No surprise, but Comments are disabled for that piece of prevaricating propaganda. Also, "Thumbs Up" and "Thumbs Down" ratings are disabled.

Can you imagine going to the trouble of filming a slick professionally-produced statement on social policy, and stifling any comments that would tell you whether or not your message was effective? What a waste of bandwidth.

Blues

 

[sdprof]

How about a counter piece - Stand up FOR SYG.

 

[ezkl2230]

No surprise, but Comments are disabled for that piece of prevaricating propaganda. Also, "Thumbs Up" and "Thumbs Down" ratings are disabled.

Can you imagine going to the trouble of filming a slick professionally-produced statement on social policy, and stifling any comments that would tell you whether or not your message was effective? What a waste of bandwidth.

Blues

They aren't interested in debating the issue. For that matter, neither am I. I will discuss the issue with others who still have receptive minds. But don't forget the GC playbook, from page 6:

KEY MESSAGING PRINCIPLES

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.

It’s critical that you ground your messaging around gun violence prevention by making that emotional connection. Don’t skip past emotional arguments and lapse into a passionless public policy voice. And don’t make the gun violence debate seem as if it is a political “food fight” between two interest groups.

There is a reason why the NRA falls silent at times of high-profile gun violence incidents. The last thing they want is an American conversation centered on the terrible toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

#2: TELL STORIES WITH IMAGES AND FEELINGS.

Our first task is to draw a vivid portrait and make an emotional connection. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence. Compelling facts should be used to back up that emotional narrative, not as a substitute for it.

WARNING: Don’t break the power and undermine the value of emotionally powerful images and feelings by appearing squeamish or apologetic in presenting them.


No, the reason the NRA falls silent is that we aren't out to make political hay with such incidents. We want to be able to discuss serious incidents when people can do so when they are thinking clearly and able to engage considerations free from the emotional baggage that GC Inc wants to keep them weighed down with.

And from page 43:

#6: RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR AUDIENCE HAS BROADENED.

A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence. It opens the eyes and ears of folks who, in more “normal” circumstances, don’t pay much attention to the issue of gun violence prevention. (A parallel is the expanded audience that relief groups have when a tsunami or devastating hurricane hit.)

That means we should seek out opportunities to engage these newly accessible audiences – through mainstream media appearances, online outreach, and other channels. But, it also means we have to be alert to the differences in talking to our established base and to the “uninitiated.”

When talking to our base, the emphasis should be on the need for urgent action to respond to the crisis at hand. We’re picking up a long-running conversation with a special focus and intensity.

But, when talking to broader audiences, we want to make sure we meet them where they are. That means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions, keeping our facts and our case simple and direct, and avoiding arguments that leave people thinking they don’t know enough about the topic to weigh in.

Emphasis added.

Did you get that last part? Emotion trumps Constitutional rights (that's what "policy prescriptions" boils down to) and informing people about what the objective data really tell us is something to be avoided at all costs. Keep their emotions worked up and you will get their buy-in.

 

[the dark]

Link Removed the alternative story for SYG. Should be plenty of emotion to go around for that story - and also support from the available data.

 

[buckey01]

No surprise, but Comments are disabled for that piece of prevaricating propaganda. Also, "Thumbs Up" and "Thumbs Down" ratings are disabled.

Can you imagine going to the trouble of filming a slick professionally-produced statement on social policy, and stifling any comments that would tell you whether or not your message was effective? What a waste of bandwidth."

Blues

They don't want comments because they know that their arguments are specious. Progressives go for emotionally appealing arguments that can not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. They know, however, that the undiscerning, idiot class of voters will not question either their emotional commitment or their intellectual honesty.

 

[BluesStringer]

I wish I could take credit for this quote, but I read it on NewsWithViews.com, reported by Cliff Kincaid as he was reporting/commenting on the launch yesterday of Al Jazzera America. His essay, AL JAZEERA TARGETS AMERICA, begins thusly:

Anti-Al Jazeera posters have recently appeared in Egypt saying, “A bullet kills a man, a lying camera kills a nation.” This attitude led to the new government closing the channel, after 22 staffers quit in disgust over its pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias.

Now, I despise the kind of discourse that relies solely on dishonest talking points and sloganeering as the method of getting a "point" across, but in this case, the above bolded quote is 100% truthful and on-point as it applies to the kind of propaganda in the subject video. May I suggest that everywhere we see that video reposted that does allow comments, we alert each other to the URL and each post just that quote as our comment. Every time we hear of a commentator getting ready to go on a news show, we hit their email and/or social media accounts with requests to begin and end their comments about the video with the above quote. The quote applies so succinctly to so many issues our country currently faces that it seems to me it has the potential to become a grass-roots-generated viral slogan that, as long as the side of an issue promulgating it has truth on their side, would be inarguable, indisputable and non-debatable without exposing the dishonest opposition for the propaganda-mongers they are. Any replies to those one-line comments could be where we explain the data that supports the truthfulness of the quote. It could start an in-depth discussion, or maybe not, but if it became a slogan of "movement" proportions associated with a pro-Constitution, pro-2nd Amendment, fully defensible position, sheer numbers of one-line posts/comments would demonstrate to the professional liars who and what they're up against.

Anyway, the rest of the above-linked essay is certainly worth a read, but I wanted to get my idea out there before maybe starting another thread about the Al Jazzera launch. Just an idea. Do with it what you will.

Blues

 

[whodat2710]

The Libs call it the "get away with murder" law, and use wonderfull talking points about the good old days and an a$$-whoopin', and racial profiling, and how nobody would die if all those damn guns weren't involved. You have to get through to the low-info types about how many people are saved by SYG, and we need to come up with a good "common sense" slogan for their proposal. Maybe the "Monty Python Holy Grail Law". Nah, they probably wouldn't get it. Maybe just th You-Must-Run-Away Law.