Boycotts, Social Media & Gun Control

[RETG]

The day of the anti-gun march on Washington all gun owners need to go onto the NRA site and send as much money as they can. I know i will and sending at least 20 bucks.

The problem of a counter march is the liberals tend to have all the time in the world to march; whereas, the conservative tends to work for a living.

As for the discounts? Has anyone here joined the NRA for the discounts? I have never used on.

And I am selling all my symantec stock tomorrow. Only 100+ shares but still I want nothing to do with them and I have already sent out an email stating my position.

[Lohman446]

The thing about strikes and walkouts is that which you are withholding must be of value to the other party. Staging a walk-out if your expensive education funded by someone else when the educators are not in a position to meet your demands? Ummm.

Edit. Sorry. The school walkouts were on my mind

[kmw1954]

I find a large difference between Web based forums and Facebook, twitter, snapchat or whatever. Here on this forum and most other forums I belong to we are limited in the scope of what can be posted and on some it is even tighter on what is allowed. One site allows exactly zero political discussion even if it's germane to the forum subject. Another does not allow any type of product bashing at all. If one writes a review that is unfavorable it better be backed up by facts or examples and not just supposition.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Read the Philosophy of Leo Strauss. Understand how Joseph Goebbels the Minister of Propaganda lead the Germans into destruction.
Look at CNN, they constantly use Propaganda, lies, half truths, conspiracy theories etc. to distort the truth and most of all use FEAR to motivate the sheep that listen to this crap.

Focusing of the "AR" is a successful "Wedge Issue" for them. Like propaganda, they will repeat this fear over and over and over. And for them and the sheep it sticks after time.
CNN is a dedicated propaganda mainline source for the Liberal party, masquerading as a News Channel. By using the wedge issue, they are actually given a symbol of evil that represents the second amendment and those that support it.
Of course they will not want to go after the real source. The predator that exist in today's world, the mental illness, the school system that does not provide the technology that is out there, the student that never should have even entered the building. That would not serve their cause.
FEAR FEAR FEAR, preach it over and over. Make someone the evil doer. Forget the person that actually did the killing. Make the second amendment that evil.
Amazing how we live in a society with such stupid people.

[BarryLee]

Here is another twist and I suspect social media has some impact on this. Bank of America will be meeting with their customers who manufacture guns to ask them, "how they can end mass shootings". Since the Constitution allows the ownership of firearms it appears they are trying to removing the financing for manufactures. Forgive the "tin foil hat moment" but I seriously believe there are powerful forces working behind the scenes to manipulate this entire situation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1G900U

[Skans]

It is ridiculous for us to expect non-gun companies to support the NRA. The NRA is for Gun Owners and Gun Companies. In my opinion, the NRA made a mistake by seeking partnerships with these other companies. In the short term, it gave them some money, I suppose. In the long run, I don't think they were prepared for such a fall out. I guess I need to step up my donations to the NRA.

[BarryLee]

An interesting development in the “politically correct” move by some businesses to drop relationships with the NRA. The State of Georgia is in the process of updating their tax system to accommodate the Federal Tax cuts. One of the early initiatives was a $50 million-dollar sales tax exemption on jet fuel for Delta. After Delta jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon the legislature has threatened to remove this measure unless delta restores the relationship.

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regi...udmyH/new.html

[Tom Servo]

After Delta jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon the legislature has threatened to remove this measure unless delta restores the relationship.

On one hand, I'm interested to see how Delta reacts and whether they consider political correctness to be worth it when it affects their bottom line.

On the other, I have a real problem with the government trying to dictate who someone does business with.

[BarryLee]

On the other, I have a real problem with the government trying to dictate who someone does business with.

Yes, I thought the same thing. I guess I just don't understand why these companies felt obligated to do something in the first place. Warren Buffet said while he thinks individuals should get involved in these debates companies should not. He said about gun control, “I don't believe in imposing my views on 370,000 employees and a million shareholders. I'm not their nanny on that”.

[Lohman446]

Most of these businesses are publicly traded entities that have justified all sorts of questionable behavior under the guise of some fiduciary duty to the share holders to increase market value. When convenient they throw out moral concerns and point to that fiduciary duty as some moral imperative. They cannot have it both ways.

[rickyrick]

Well, today’s issue is the just get Trump out of office crowd will do anything to counter him, no matter the harm it does to the citizens in the process. I’m not republican, just my observation.

[TDL]

I'm a bit confused by all these corporate boycotts. I wasn't under the impression that companies like Hertz or Oil of Olay or any of the others were significant donors in any way. They're withdrawing what, $75/year donations? Well, pack it up boys, we're boned.

It's virtue signaling, just like the vast majority of what we're hearing on social media.

Having worked a bit in association management, I can explain some of what is going on with affinity deals.

So affinity deals help both, they are in no way "donations" and usually are not really much money. only a fraction of members tend to make use of them, and when they are cancelled one does not hear complaints from membership.

The question is did you join NRA, ACLU, Human rights campaign, Planned parenthood for its affinity programs? Virtually no one does. AARP maybe but it markets itself for that purpose, AARP membership itself is about joining a giant discount program, NRA membership is not

Keep in mind:
a) these are affinity deals being discontinued, NOT sponsorships or grants.

b) My dad belongs to AARP for things like affinity deals. He and I and my wife don't belong to NRA because of affinity deals. Just as people don't belong to ACLU, Planned parenthood, etc for affinity deals and discounts

c) you should look at this as part of the media and social media campaign by the gun control lobby, which like staging a rally for weeks away is part of an overall strategy to keep the issue in the news be it traditional mas media or retweets. They have learned that support for things like bans go up maybe 15 points and then six months later drop 17 or 18 points as cooler, less emotional thoughtful analysis occurs.

They are learning from their past mistakes. They also know gun ownership is inherently discreet and most gun owners are not going to march or make public displays or fall into the trap of hectoring children doing so.

if you are a NRA member giving gift memberships is $25. I just called my sister and two adult nieces and they agreed they would appreciate a gift membership.

The best way to combat the narrative of NRA being injured and hobbled (and people don't like losers) is to show a "backlash" -- to give, solicit new members, and make the NRA stronger than eve. Just as the NRA got larger, stronger and over the long term much much more popular with a majority of all Americas after it changed to a more muscular position.

[Double Naught Spy]

Ok, point taken.

So how do you characterize the lemmings who blindly follow their cause of the day on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and probably several others I've never heard of??

First you start by giving up the pompous attitude that those that don't share your views are non-thinkers and realize that your characterizations apply to many folks who do share your views but that are just as involved in this "groupthink/herd mentality." Until you can figure out how to police those who share your views, you can't do the same for those who don't share your views. However, we are often slow to be critical of those who share our views (even if it is as spouted mindless rhetoric free of original thought) because that would weaken our own position. We seem to welcome those "sheeple" who share our views, bolstering our numbers. We don't seem to care if they have an original thought in their heads or not so long as they vote our way and we are not critical of them. People who don't share our views are those that we categorizing in nasty, derogatory manners. After all, obviously they could not have individual thoughts if they don't share our views, right?

You listed several forms of social media, but conveniently left out forums. You really do seem to be failing to understand the reflexiveness of your negative characterizations of the opposition really do apply to our group as well.

Look, just because people don't share our values does not mean that they are mentally sub-par. Both side of the gun issue really do seem to have a real inability to recognize this.

[rickyrick]

Nothing to worry about, just corporations trying to force us to have morals and pressure us into having a certain political view... all harmless

[croberts]

Something that I don't think gets talked about enough are "Gun Facts". The real fact is that facts and data can be interpreted differently. I see people share stuff on social media all the time about gun facts that prove that gun control will curb school shootings or whatever. But people can interpret data differently to fit their own world view. This happens on both sides of the debate, people massage and manipulate data to tell the story they want to tell, even if it's not on purpose, even if you don't give a rats ass one way or another in the debate. There are too many factors from who is gathering the data, and how it's being done, to who is reporting the data, and all the people who touch that data in between.

I love data, and I work for a data company, but data can lie too. And I don't believe anyone on social media understand this.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

First you start by giving up the pompous attitude that those that don't share your views are non-thinkers and realize that your characterizations apply to many folks who do share your views but that are just as involved in this "groupthink/herd mentality."

Unfortunately, that's the state of our society now. I really don't see how we roll it back. If you voted for Candidate A, you're a commie pinko who wants to inflict gay Sharia law. If you voted for Candidate B, you're a knuckle dragging Nazi fascist.

#youareHitlerifyoudisagreewithme

Social media allows us to vent the basest of ideas to a wide audience and it encourages us to do so without stopping to think of the consequences. I'm often shocked at the things people say online and wonder if they'd actually say those things in face-to-face conversation.

Et cui bono? Advertising companies and marketing executives. If anything, the hysterical reactions to pretty much everything these days show that we're just as amenable to emotional manipulation as a 13th century peasant mob. Somebody's making money on this. The rest of us can do nothing but bemoan the death of civility and reasoned discourse.

[rickyrick]

In the midst of the last election a company I did business with started making social media post bashing supporters of specific candidate for president.
I wrote a polite letter to them about how I felt that their actions were inappropriate for the business they were in. I wrote them in a neutral tone and explained that it may put off a portion of their customers. I didn’t support any party, I just thought it was generally an inappropriate setting.

They sent me a blistering response stating that they didn’t give a (common cuss word) if they lost 75% of their customer base. They also added that members of The (_________) Party should not be living in the US anymore. They also stated that if it meant that they only sold to international customers and lost all US business, they would at least sleep at night.

[5whiskey]

They sent me a blistering response stating that they didn’t give a (common cuss word) if they lost 75% of their customer base. They also added that members of The (_________) Party should not be living in the US anymore. They also stated that if it meant that they only sold to international customers and lost all US business, they would at least sleep at night.

See I do personally believe one political party has a greater percentage of extreme members who would respond in this way, but I cede it may be a personal perception and/or bias of mine. I could see extremes of either party saying this exact same thing. So without more context I can't tell which party/candidate the company advocated for. Which proves Tom Servos point.

[rickyrick]

You’re right. That’s the political climate.

In the big picture there’s two sides in American politics. One side is virtuous the other side is not. In the big picture, gun ownership is not on the virtuous side.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is an interesting article discussing all the different professional activists that interjected themselves into Parkland (and why it came out differently): http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/...-astroturfing/

[44 AMP]

In the big picture, gun ownership is not on the virtuous side.

That's the line they are selling, and all too many people buy into it.

I think one thing that is being missed, by both political parties and by businesses and activists who think Social media rules the world of opinion.

And that is something that in earlier times was known as the "silent majority".

It still exists, despite the current concept that everyone who matters is talking in tweets and posts. They seldom make comments, but when they feel their interests are actually threatened, they do vote.

It takes time, and something drastic to arouse their ire, but once it happens, they have the numbers to make a huge impact.

Consider this, while that frightened high schooler is being encouraged to plead for the banning of assault weapons, ask them what their grandfather thinks about that idea. Some will agree, of course, but a lot of them won't.

And not because they are all gun fanatics (many aren't) but because many of them have the wisdom to know what things just won't work.

I'm not trying to say everyone older is wiser, after all, there's no fool like an old fool. But there are a LOT of people in this country who don't post on social media of any kind. They aren't the ones being counted in online polls.

They often aren't counted in ANY polls, except the official ones every couple years in November.

I know a number of people who have strongly held convictions, and do vote, and refuse to take part in any kind of poll or survey, period. I know others who deliberately lie to poll takers and surveys, just to screw with them.

One fellow I knew somehow got on a list to be polled, during the early Clinton years. He got a call every 2-3 months, asking his opinion about the job the President was doing. This guy was about as political as a stump, didn't care one way, or the other, so he told them he was ok with what the President was doing. After a few years of this, he decided to tell them something else. He told the caller he was very upset with the bad job the President was doing. They never called him again....

The US has over 330 MILLION people if the last census is even remotely accurate. WE are NOT a homogenous mixture, spread evenly across the nation. Poll people from a metro area and from a rural area and you can get widely different responses on some issues and similar responses on others.

Personally I just don't see how you can survey 1,000 people and with confidence claim its a true representation of over 300 million people, about anything.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Some more store effects:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/b...-products.html

[adamBomb]

On one hand, I'm interested to see how Delta reacts and whether they consider political correctness to be worth it when it affects their bottom line.

On the other, I have a real problem with the government trying to dictate who someone does business with.

Delta just doesn't want to be involved in politics. I don't blame them. Unfortunately they are now because of this GA mess. The GA gov should not be involved in this matter at all and honestly I wouldn't blame delta and other companies if they took their business elsewhere...I would if I had a company in GA because who knows what nonsense they will come up with next. Gov should stay out of it.

Unfortunately, that's the state of our society now. I really don't see how we roll it back. If you voted for Candidate A, you're a commie pinko who wants to inflict gay Sharia law. If you voted for Candidate B, you're a knuckle dragging Nazi fascist.

Pretty much this. If I disagree with a democrat they think I am a crazy redneck. If I disagree with a republican they think I am Obama's boyfriend. I don't get it. Some people actually belong to neither party and just try to look at each issue and come up with plausible solutions based on available data.

[Lohman446]

That Delta thing is a mess. Making tax-breaks and incentives, which effectively amount to giving away the money that is the states, contingent on particular political stances or non-stances seems would seem to me, on the face of it, to be a major concern. We end up effectively funneling money from the common trust of the state to public companies so they can make political stances.

[Prndll]

Any decision I might make, one way or the other regarding the NRA will be based solely on what the NRA does. Symantec, Delta, or any other entity can do what they like. They are free to choose (as I am). I have already chosen NOT to use any Symantec product. I chose that many years ago and I did so based on technological reasons....NOT politics. I don't fly. So I have no need for Delta. I also have no desire for anything on Facebook or Twitter. My decisions are mine and if someone wishes to boycott the NRA, then fine. Whatever. But they should NEVER think that their decision to do so will persuade me to follow. Particularly when that organization has already proven its uselessness to me.

Boycotts really don't work anyway. Even though I've decided to boycott certain companies myself, that is a personal decision and I am under no illusion that anyone else should or will follow. Each person can choose for themselves. It's just that so many people choose to let someone else choose for them. But that is still a choice.