6 ms·

Would people have the same complaints if it was the other way around? Snapchat reached out to the NRA and offered a free Live Story as partnership for Gun Appre

• inlined 10y ago
  I think there's a perceived difference with non profits. E.g. I enjoy alcohol but would still feel the same way if this happened with MADD vs Jonny Walker
  • imsofuture 10y ago
    The NRA doesn't sell guns. pre-emptive edit in case someone finds some place where this isn't true: I mean generally. They are not a gun manufacturer or seller generally.
    • komali2 10y ago
      Furthermore, the NRA is pro-gun safety. I can't speak for the NRA, but myself and other members will be wearing orange on June 2nd. It's not like the NRA is going to run a "BUY MORE GUNS!" advertisement... it'll likely be something tasteful. Then again, I have been disappointed by the NRA's taste in the past.
      • npunt 10y ago
        The NRA has lobbied to block federally funded scientific research on gun violence and safety[1], so I wouldn't say they're pro gun safety, at a macro level at least. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-re...
        • wl 10y ago
          The Dickey Amendment only banned political advocacy, not research. The problem is that the CDC was producing research that was thinly veiled political advocacy.
          • dragonwriter 10y ago
            The purpose of CDC research on public health problems is largely to identify and support policy responses to those problems.
            • wl 10y ago
              Patrick O'Carroll, one of the major researchers involved with the CDC's efforts in question, infamously wrote that, "We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths." Doing research to support a predetermined conclusion is not good science. It was political advocacy wearing the mantle of science.
              • kls 10y ago
                And that is a huge issue with people that don't understand science backing away from and outright rejecting science. That is the whole problem with "Science" today is once you inject advocacy in one little area and it is exposed people throw the baby out with the bath water. Take environmental sciences for example, the CRU and other leaks where scientist where exposed colluding with other scientist to blackball legitimate skeptics tainted the whole industry. Now we are seeing an wholesale rejection of environmental sciences and the gutting of the EPA. In a manner this is good, because there was obvious collusion and political advocacy and intent to stifle real science. On the other had, we also got a wholesale rejection by the voting majority which is now set to put clean energy back decades. I personally put the blame squarely on the scientist of the CRU and the NOAA pause buster scientists (they are a disgrace to the title). They cost us dearly by trying to advance their agenda. When you compromise the integrity of science the cost is just too great.
                • 10y ago
  • wef234t24 10y ago
    NRA is also a non-profit :)
    • npunt 10y ago
      Ya, a non profit sorta like how the NFL was :) It's more or less an industry advocacy group, so it's a bit different than a typical nonprofit advocacy group.
      • DannyBee 10y ago
        Err, no. The NRA is not an industry association non-profit like the NFL was (the NFL is no longer a 501(c)(6) since 2015) It's only an industry advocacy group in the sense that there is an industry that happens to have goals that align with the people who fund it. That's not an industry advocacy group, in the same way the various brady groups are not industry advocacy groups simply because there is an industry (trigger-locks, non-lethal weaponry, etc) that happens to have goals that align with the people who fund that.
        • npunt 10y ago
          I meant it as a bit of a tongue in cheek response, and indeed I used 'was' to indicate the NFLs former status. Nevertheless, I don't think its as simple as goals happening to align with industry, nor do I see equivalence in the industry relationships to brady groups (though admittedly I haven't researched that). Given the NRA's closely held governance structure and the large individual donations from manufacturers, one does not need a great deal of money (and certainly not majority of $) to influence direction toward industry ends that may not be in the interest of individual members as much as industry members and NRA leadership. That's honestly the best kind of influence to have, as your goals appear to be those of the large passionate group of individuals. I agree though 'more or less' overstates that relationship, I was wrong. I'll amend that to: the industry has influence over the policies the NRA advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base. FWIW I'm not opposed to the NRA per se, in fact a group for teaching responsible gun use is great. I'm just opposed to the current incarnation of the organization.
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    Which is exactly why the auto insurance industry heavily funds MADD, to the point of driving MADD's agenda: the credit people give nonprofit advocacy groups with a superficially socially responsible purposes makes them a very good tool for industry.
• hackuser 10y ago
  The parent post creates a hypothetical opinion held by hypothetical people, and then criticizes it. IMHO this kind of comment is merely inflammatory; I'm no smarter after reading it, and if I buy into it then I become misinformed.
  • averagewall 10y ago
    I'm trying to isolate the political beliefs from the "treating customers badly" or "being mean" concerns. People sometimes confuse them and expect that groups on their own political side should be given better treatment than opposing groups. You might not be making that mistake yourself so perhaps it's no use to you. In general, I think isolating those separate ideas is helpful for thinking critically.
    • hackuser 10y ago
      > You might not be making that mistake yourself so perhaps it's no use to you But is anyone thinking it? I can say in reference some people I don't like, 'I disagree with the people who like to kick puppies'. Part of my objection is that throwing unfounded allegations around is at the core, IMHO, of the propaganda that seems to rule public discourse currently. It's easy to make them, it takes far more time to refute them - and then the attacker makes another one.
  • franciscop 10y ago
    It is called the Straw Man fallacy[1]; once you learn about it (and other fallacies) you will see it in many more places. Don't forget to account for personal Bias though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
• floatrock 10y ago
  You're suggesting there is a type of symmetry around relative moral beliefs on the gun debate, and it is somewhat arbitrary to be upset on one side of it but not the other. If that was all there was to it, I would agree. However, that's missing the huge asymmetry at play here: money. Specifically, the NRA is an industry-funded group that has lots of it, and the people who's family members have been victims of gun violence don't. If this was a spat between, say, Google and Oracle, each of which has boatloads of money to buy the competitor's advertising spots, no one would care. But this story feels scummy because it's a human story, one where the little guy is fighting a noble cause but is being shaken down by organizations who write weekly checks larger than some of these people will see in their lifetime. If you pretend that money doesn't create an asymmetry, then yes, you being upset this way but not the other is all relative.
  • mindcrime 10y ago
    Specifically, the NRA is an industry-funded group Is it really? It seems to me that there is a lot of reason to believe that the NRA is funded primarily through membership fees and individual contributions. https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Ri... In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the NRA, and probably ever other pro-gun advocacy group you've ever heard of, and some you haven't.
  • DannyBee 10y ago
    " Specifically, the NRA is an industry-funded group that has lots of it," It's really really not. There are plenty of groups that fall into that category, the NRA is not one of them. The fact that you are just kind of saying this blindly, without any data to back it up, when even trivial searches would tell you it's wrong, severely dilutes any argument you have. (note, i actually am very anti-gun, but i try to at least research the assertions i'm going to make)
  • diek 10y ago
    > Specifically, the NRA is an industry-funded group that has lots of it That's just not true at all: https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Ri... (edit: bah, in the time verifying my sources, three other people posted the same info :) )
• dandersh 10y ago
  Maybe it's not someone's political bias but your false equivalency at work?
• wfo 10y ago
  Not quite correct. When you're discussing the death of innocent people, children, etc. some tact is appropriate. I'm generally pro-gun but yelling at the top of your lungs about how great guns are to the parents of the victims of sandy hook is completely repulsive and something I'm sure you would never do. Pro-gun ads are great but if they appear right after a haunting piece about a child killed through gun violence they are disgusting unless they are very, very tactful (which I have never seen from ANY ad). They shouldn't be placed there because it's offensive (and it does no favor to the pro-gun cause). I think that's on snap chat to avoid those instances always. You could say hyper-emotional appeals about the victims shouldn't be done, and I'd agree with you, but they are done, so tact is important.
  • briandear 10y ago
    To take a bit of a devil's advocate approach, one might argue that seeing gun control ads in the context of Sandy Hook would be inappropriate because one could argue that more responsible people carrying guns could have prevented the tragedy. I am not supporting or opposing that viewpoint but it could be argued just as effectively as an assertion that gun control would have prevented the tragedy. I do NOT want to (or intend to) get into a gun control debate -- my point is that there a many ways to parse these things. When discussing the Boston Marathon bombing no advocacy groups were demanding a ban on pressure cookers. In France after the Nice attack, nobody was advocating for stricter truck licensing requirements or enhanced background checks on commercial truck renters/puchasers. My second point is that agenda groups hijack tragedy to achieve their own ends. As Obama's advisor Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste." In the context of a story, its editorial malfeasance to prevent all sides of a story from being expressed.
    • wfo 10y ago
      The problem is neither of your analogies are appropriate. A reasonable analogy would be ads cheerleading nuclear power after a nuclear power plant explosion killed thousands and permanently ruined a region of a country. And an ad just played that tried to garner sympathy for the children of women effected by the nuclear blast. A reasonable analogy would be additional regulations on airplanes after they killed thousands of people in a terrorist attack.