Is there anybody out there still believing this is an original production coming out of the highly paid Madison Avenue advertisers that work for Bloomberg and Shannon Watson? Does it frigging look like they stuff they put out regularly? Does it match with what they say in their meetings, marches. or other public appearances? No, right? Well Sparky, there is what experts call a fucking clue.
And please, stop making excuses as why you decided to be intellectually lazy and rather than make sure the meme is unadulterated BS, decided it would be more fun just to pass it along. The “it articulates their position accurately” or any half-bit sophomoric/pseudo Jesuitical argument: Lies are lies dear Bubba and using the “Mommy, but Timmy does it too.” is not a proper response for an adult defending an obvious lie.
Moms, Everytown, CSGV, Brady and the lot provide us with a healthy amount of original product ripe for the picking and snarking. The only thing you need is to do is watch, screen-capture their screw ups and share them happily with the world. Now, if you are too fucking lazy to stop watching The Big Bang Theory reruns to use whatever brain cells you have and maybe look at the fake meme and perhaps think, “This shit is too inflammatory for even these idiots. I better check for provenance.” then please stay put, refill your bowl of cheesy puffs, get confy in the bean bag and do not hit Retweet or Share. Just keep watching the boob tube for boobs.
STOP HELPING THE OPPOSITION.
Thanks, you may now return to your upright position.
Preach it, brother. This stuff makes me crazy when I think of how the enemy can point to actual lies from our side.
“Don’t Lie for the Other Guy.” applies to advocacy as well as straw purchases.
You don’t lie to purchase for a prohibited person, because, duh…
You don’t tell lies about the Anti-Self Defense movement because they put out more than enough bullshit themeselves. Far more effective to be the side known for honesty, facts, and reasoned arguments to counter their dishonesty, hyperbole, and emotional fallacies.
To the people using this things: “It articulates their position accurately”
You better be damn sure about that, Sparky. If it doesn’t perfectly state their opinion, it’s a straw-man argument, and will be summarily dealt with as such.
And even if it does perfectly state their opinion, (*ahem*) you cannot make a mockery of their position, by using a position they didn’t themselves take. You cannot ridicule their words by ridiculing someone else’s words, no matter how similar they appear.
To properly ridicule an opponent’s work, you must use their actual work.
Unless you’re the mainstream press going after a Republican candidate, then you are allowed to substitute their actual words with articles from the Onion or punch lines from SNL.
Did you know that there’s no entry for “credulous” in the dictionary?
I am at post-meal slow brain function and therefore missing something ’cause Merriam sez otherwise.
Did you know that “gullible” isn’t in the dictonary?
OK, I get it…round room…
My soul hurts now. 🙁
Sorry Tam! But this should help with the healing
Posting obvious fake items kills one’s credibility. Why then should one believe you when you try to support your own side?
So Moms Demand Action is OK with rape as long as it is non-fatal? Being kind-of OK with rape is an interesting position to take for an organization created, and supposedly run, by a woman.
er….no. That is the point I am trying to make. The ad is a fake.
[…] So Miguel and many others are expressing distaste in this image: […]
I’m new here, so I’m asking this in all sincerity: Does your complaint also apply to all the pro-gun bloggers who wrote headlines claiming that Joe Biden said he prays for another high-profile victim of gun violence to replace Jim Brady, when he said no such thing?
I completely agree that our credibility needs to be A#1, and that bovine scat pro-gun “spin” drove me up the wall.
I was one of those and Joe Biden is not the smartest cookie in the jar. The shotgun defense alone is worth several million dollars of lawsuits.
“I was one of those …”
I’m new here. And I’m not gonna bother to go look.
But Biden reportedly said the following at the Oct. 10 James Brady memorial:
“What we need is another Jim Brady, who has the skill and the ability to convince those who are afraid, who walk the halls of Congress, to step up and do what they know is right. One will come along. It will happen. I pray God it is sooner rather than later” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/10/joe-biden-what-we-need-is-another-jim-brady-to-pus/)
And if you twisted those words into a headline that sounded something like, “Joe Biden prays for another high-profile gun victim,” then your integrity is every bit as lacking as the dolts who concoct bogus Moms Demand memes.
I agree with you that Biden is a doofus with chronic foot-in-mouth disease. So why not take your own advice: “The only thing you need is to do is watch, screen-capture their screw ups and share them happily with the world.”
Integrity maters. We don’t get to put words in the man’s mouth. Let him trip over his own tongue. Just because he didn’t do so at the Brady memorial service doesn’t mean we get to pretend we know what we think he meant.
Peace …
But Jim Brady did not get to be a Gun Control Activist until after he was shot. So asking for another Jim Brady leaves that interpretation open and that was the question asked: Is Biden asking for another gun down person to be the new face of Gun Control?
That was not “the question asked.” (Unless that’s how you framed it. Guess now I’ll have to go dig up your post.)
I read at least two other gun bloggers whose headlines stated: “Biden prays for another high-profile gun violence victim” (or words to that effect).
I find your excuses in support of the very thing you’re criticizing … uh, interesting, given the obvious difference between a meme (not taken seriously by most; generated for a laugh) and a blog post headline purporting to report an afctual news story.
BTW, just checked your post on the subject: “Joe Biden: ‘What we need is another Jim Brady.” Huh?”
I have no probs whatsoever with the way you worded it. It’s the pro-gun idiots who said Biden said he wants another high-profile gun violence victim, which is demonstrably not the case.
OK… I see.
That was not “the question asked.” (Unless that’s how you framed it. Guess now I’ll have to go dig up your post.)
I read at least two other gun bloggers whose headlines stated: “Biden prays for another high-profile gun violence victim” (or words to that effect).
I find your excuses in support of the very thing you’re criticizing … uh, interesting, given the obvious difference between a meme (not taken seriously by most; generated for a laugh) and a blog post headline purporting to report an afctual news story.
Frank: “pro-gun idiots”
Miguel: “OK… I see.”
Actually, I suspect you don’t, due to your selective perception. Which may be my fault, b/c of the way I wrote it. I should have said, “It’s the idiots who said Biden said he wants another high-profile gun violence victim, which is demonstrably not the case.”
Capice?
(I’m strongly pro-gun.)