Truly bizarre NRA ad...

[excalibur]

Yeah I don't disagree with any of that. But here's a thought: in the wake of last weekend's...events...what will the next NRA video look like? Will they continue to produce things like this, or will they decide that prudence is the better part of judgment and back off a bit?

If they moderate themselves at all, it probably won't last for long. They've shown their true colours- as agitators and propagandists for the Trump Administration and the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. They bear part of the responsibility for creating the culture of political violence and extremism that lead to the terrorism in Charlottsville.

How does a group that is only for protecting our rights to bear arms from a government people are giving more power to, the ones that create a "culture of political violence and extremism?"

I don't see myself or any of the people I know that associate with the NRA and gun rights to be of political extremes or anything from that. It's like saying PETA is the reason why people eat more bacon

[LittleRaven]

What is wrong with extreme? Why is it labelled as toxic? Why is the word used like it should end an argument?

There's nothing wrong with the word extreme. Extreme can be a lot of fun. But extreme political movements are generally treated with caution, because they are almost always coupled with violence. (there are a few notable exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare, and even in those cases, they were surrounded by violence)

That doesn't mean that extreme movements are always bad. Sometimes, you need extreme. Some people would argue that we need extreme movements here in the United States. (you saw a lot of them at Charlottesville a couple of weeks ago) But I'm not one of those people. For me, the risk that extreme movements pose far outweigh any potential benefit they might bring. I'm of the mind that the system needs reform, not revolution.

Right now, polling suggests I'm in the majority, which is why extreme is used as a pejorative in political arguments. Even with the election of Trump, people's reactions to things like Berkeley and Charlottesville suggest that going extreme is a political loser. Trump gets less popular as he gets more bombastic. Americans support of both the left and the right fall whenever one of them is perceived to engage in violence. But none of this is guaranteed to be constant.

[LittleRaven]

How does a group that is only for protecting our rights to bear arms from a government people are giving more power to, the ones that create a "culture of political violence and extremism?"

It doesn't. But is that what the NRA is these days?

Full disclosure here: I'm a gun owner. I go shooting a few times a year. I've taken my kids shooting. I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and until a few minutes before I created this thread, I thought defending the 2nd Amendment was what the NRA was all about.

Which is why that ad confused me so much. I mean, just watch it:

youtu.be/XtGOQFf9VCE

It never mentions the Second Amendment. It never talks about gun rights AT ALL. It just rants about the media and how the left is screaming about racism and sexism and rioting and then getting upset when the police crack down on them. I personally think most of that is nonsense, but even if you don't.....what does any of that have to do with gun ownership?

I admire advocacy groups, even when I don't particularly agree with what they're advocating, because when you are committed to an ideal, sooner or later you're going to find yourself defending loathsome people who are abusing that ideal. The ACLU finds itself in that position all the time, and we're lucky to have them. Likewise, we need an organization committed to defending the Second Amendment even when someone has just shot up a classroom full of kindergartners with a high powered rifle. I had thought that the NRA was that organization. But these ads suggest I was wrong.

[excalibur]

Exactly as I said before. This is such horrible PR and doesn't make sense.

There are plenty of other groups out there that are more focused

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah I don't disagree with any of that. But here's a thought: in the wake of last weekend's...events...what will the next NRA video look like? Will they continue to produce things like this, or will they decide that prudence is the better part of judgment and back off a bit?

If they moderate themselves at all, it probably won't last for long. They've shown their true colours- as agitators and propagandists for the Trump Administration and the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. They bear part of the responsibility for creating the culture of political violence and extremism that lead to the terrorism in Charlottsville.

I would love to know how they created the envioroment that got that women killed with a car.
What is wrong with extreme? Why is it labelled as toxic? Why is the word used like it should end an argument?

I'm using "extremism" as basically short-hand here for "violent radicals who wish to impose their uncompromising and despotic worldview to the exclusion of all others", if that helps clarify things.

As to why extremism is toxic... because by its very nature it clouds ones' ability to view issues objectively, hinders ones' ability to adjust ones' views based on new evidence or circumstances, and precludes making the compromises necessary to exist in a free or diverse society.

And I said exactly how they created such an environment (along with other factors)- by promoting the message discussed in this thread- namely, a message geared towards armed, angry Right-wing radicals that fosters the belief that the Left are an evil and existential threat that must be crushed by other means.

[Karha of Honor]

Yeah I don't disagree with any of that. But here's a thought: in the wake of last weekend's...events...what will the next NRA video look like? Will they continue to produce things like this, or will they decide that prudence is the better part of judgment and back off a bit?

If they moderate themselves at all, it probably won't last for long. They've shown their true colours- as agitators and propagandists for the Trump Administration and the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. They bear part of the responsibility for creating the culture of political violence and extremism that lead to the terrorism in Charlottsville.

I would love to know how they created the envioroment that got that women killed with a car.
What is wrong with extreme? Why is it labelled as toxic? Why is the word used like it should end an argument?

I'm using "extremism" as basically short-hand here for "violent radicals who wish to impose their uncompromising and despotic worldview to the exclusion of all others", if that helps clarify things.

As to why extremism is toxic... because by its very nature it clouds ones' ability to view issues objectively, hinders ones' ability to adjust ones' views based on new evidence or circumstances, and precludes making the compromises necessary to exist in a free or diverse society.

And I said exactly how they created such an environment (along with other factors)- by promoting the message discussed in this thread- namely, a message geared towards armed, angry Right-wing radicals that fosters the belief that the Left are an evil and existential threat that must be crushed by other means.

That's not an accurate shorthand.

If your stuff does not sell people won't buy it. i don't think extremist turns you into any sort of bigot or fanatic.

The left is an existential threat. at the moment but i have my doubts how relevant this one video is in the current new cycle.

[The Romulan Republic]

Kindly elaborate on how you define "the Left", then explain why you consider it an existential threat, and to what.

Then tell me weather you feel that portraying the Left in that manner, in the current political climate, makes you complicit in encouraging violence against us, and if not, why.

Edit: I'll also note that you have not really refuted any of the points in my last post. Everything you posted is either assertions without much explanation or support, while your claim about salesmanship hardly seems relevant.

[LittleRaven]

The left is an existential threat. at the moment but i have my doubts how relevant this one video is in the current new cycle.

With respect, Vinod, this statement is ridiculous - if only because it's hopelessly vague. The 'left' and the 'right' are not only omnipresent, they're very broad and ever-shifting.

Could you clarify what about the left has you so concerned?

[Karha of Honor]

Kindly elaborate on how you define "the Left", then explain why you consider it an existential threat, and to what.

Then tell me weather you feel that portraying the Left in that manner, in the current political climate, makes you complicit in encouraging violence against us, and if not, why.

Edit: I'll also note that you have not really refuted any of the points in my last post. Everything you posted is either assertions without much explanation or support, while your claim about salesmanship hardly seems relevant.

The left has the most of the press, tv and movies, the majority of education especially the prestige universities. Recently for profit corporations started to break norms to cape for them.

The facts are facts and they should be presented as such.

The left is an existential threat. at the moment but i have my doubts how relevant this one video is in the current new cycle.

With respect, Vinod, this statement is ridiculous - if only because it's hopelessly vague. The 'left' and the 'right' are not only omnipresent, they're very broad and ever-shifting.

Could you clarify what about the left has you so concerned?

Left identitarainism running wild before collapsing because of it's contradictions.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Left having most of the press and educational institutions, even if true (it isn't- most of the mainstream media is Centrist, not truly Leftist) does not make the Left an existential threat to anything or anyone.

You also haven't said how you define "the Left". Their are people who would consider anyone outside of Brietbart's or Ayn Rand's little bubble "Leftist". While by the standards of much of the developed world, the Democrats are in some respects a Centre-Right party.

So you need to clarify what you mean by "the Left" if this is going to even begin to make any sense.

For me, I would probably define "Left" as, in very basic terms:

-Belief in a strong social safety net and regulation of business to protect the rights and safety of the people. Which could be anything from "preserve the existing social safety net as is, and a progressive tax rate" all the way up to full socialism with complete state control of the economy.

-Support for the disadvantaged, persecuted, and underprivileged. Advocating full equality at minimum, more likely advocating a degree of affirmative action-type responses to mitigate/counteract existing inequality.

Though I'm willing to hear alternative definitions.

Edits: Actually, I wouldn't even call a lot of the mainstream media "Centrist" so much as "self-interested/opportunist". They'll have people from both sides, and tend to favour the one that gets them more publicity and money (see the constant media fawning over Trump during the primaries, now changed to opposition in part because he's attacking them. Their are liberals and conservatives, good people and bad people working in mainstream media. But I think any overall ideological bent is fairly mild, and not terribly consistent, most of the time. At least in America.

And most of the notable exceptions are on the Right. Their really is no Left-wing equivalent to Fox News, for example (for which, as a Leftist who does not wish to be ashamed of my own side, I am very thankful).