Join the Crusade Against HSUS and Pass It Forward!—->
With continued media exposure year after year, animal extremists have used the “shelter dogs” plight as one of their foremost weapons to shut down the breeding of well-tempered dogs. The emotional tug for shelter dogs, milled dogs, abandoned dogs, abused dogs, it’s all there. 3 legged dogs, 1 eyed dog, whatever it takes.
Yet many of us could be using the same strategy. The main arsenal of the extremists does lie in their capability to USE an emotional ploy, stick with it, and then drive in the knife.
By doing this consistently, openly, and with much fanfare over and over, the media mantra is established. Those opposing MSN, and unfair restraints on commerce and trade, or, even defending the rights of a pet store to offer whatever pets they choose as against the extremist machine demonizing their every move—are the same advocates that can use the extremists’ methods against them.
By looking at the 18 months of battling against AB1634 (Proposed statewide MSN) we saw a LOT of angry, emotional people. Why? Because MSN statewide is absurd. And it’s much less expensive to fight it before it becomes another bad law. You cannot adequately fight any movement and win, without the necessary passion behind it. Because extremists fuel everything they have with a lot of emotion, that automatically pushes them ahead.
Hitting anything extremists say head on is practically required—because if we assume people understand our motivation, then we don’t effectively get the emotional aspect in line. There pretty much HAS to be some emotion involved. For example, we will usually see quite a bit of heated debate going on about pitbull type dogs? And everyone knows it– including the media. Controversial subjects are always good topics. Isn’t that what fuels the news and media?
So when we see these idiot extremists TRYING to tell us that THEY are saving shelter dogs, why that’s one of the biggest damn lies ever told! Not only is it a LIE, it is completely done with full knowledge that (for example) MSN does NOT save any shelter dogs! And it surely doesn’t even affect milled dogs, commercial kennels, or feral cats, with feral cats being the leading killing going on in shelters. So exactly HOW will it save those shelter dogs?! It won’t, and they know it.
THIS IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS AR PROPAGANDA……..NOTICE THE “YOU” WILL KILL PART…………
Are we so naive, as to think the extremists don’t know that? Nah.
They know full well what they are doing, because what they are doing is telling a STORY. Once upon a time, 3 wolves in sheep’s clothing staked out a shelter. And in the shelter, they found the AC director, the manager, and the workers. Lo and behold, they figured if they had a story about how they could save AC $$, while “saving” shelter dogs, why then the AC people would look upon them well! And indeed that is what has happened. Hook, line and sinker. If those poor shelter dogs only knew.
Perhaps because many of us are used to logically posing our arguments, we end up finding that not that many people like “our” story vs. the extremist story. Well, if that is the case, it is because we didn’t tell the story properly.
There goes the emotion again. It works every time. One MUST get people worked up. If they are not moved in some way by what we say, they won’t give it much thought. To be memorable, it usually has to have emotion to it. Usually stories about how one would LOSE something (like their beloved dog), or something about how so-and-so is taking on a giant adversary (David-Golaith underdog story) with us being the underdog–people usually like siding with underdogs.
Other than paying off some lawmaker, we are talking about winning the real way, the more difficult way. Extremists are so emotional that they can be targeted where it hurts—-seldom can they back up their agendas. They like to talk the talk but it’s based on quicksand and has little and no foundation. They cannot defend something that does not exist (if you do it correctly)—so they have to pretend that they can back up their story. Have yet to see one do it properly, but never assume.
Since they use mostly misrepresentations for arguments or points, and then they get all worked up when they talk about it, the emotion gives the story some credibility. However that credibility can come crumbling down quickly when the right well-chosen tactics are used. See http://www.humanewatch.org a very well financed media against ARs.
Timing should be figured out in advance, and one must know what the story teller has to say. We have found that when it comes to presenting their stories, they actually don’t do very well with facts and figures because they don’t have the actual data (remember, they misrepresented it in the first place.)
That’s another point though–they like to win by intimidation. Smoke bombs, fire bombs, home invasion, destruction or property, physical harassment, surveillance, and beating up one’s spouse. I think the new law did pass last week for California (animal terrorism, researchers) as opposed to Federal. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18470
Bringing up that the animal terrorists/activists are all linked into this animal worship type story can taint the extremist credibility as well–as evidenced by the humanewatch site.
Two years ago it might not have, but now that another law (CA) had to be passed just to deal with ARs targeting scientist/researchers, that’s a plus for us. Even if their credibility is questioned, their reputation should be put on the line also. Bring up any past misrepresentations because legislators or city council people don’t really want to be tied to outwardly bad people. Bring up any cases where such groups are being sued for fraud, RICO, excess lobbying,cheating on taxes, or whatever you can validate. See Nathan Winograd’s site, he always has facts.