UPDATE: GunPundit.com accepted our ad, folks. It is flying at the top of his site, here. Pay him a visit and spike his stats. ;)
K
~~
UPDATE II: Just selected GunPundit.com to run our ad for a few days - we'll see if it is approved there. If the blog owner approves, we'll have the top banner.
~~
UPDATE: Sorry folks - the ad was rejected. Why, you ask? Reason for rejection:The items sold promote the Confederacy and symbols of slavery.
If you want to see the banner that Zoomie created, I posted it at the top of Kerodin.com, here.
As you can see, the banner itself does not have any such symbols - so they passed judgment on IIIGear.com.
I'm going to chalk this up to trying to teach pigs to sing...
K
~~
We just bought a small bit of ad space over at Sebastian's place for the next few days, folks. He runs the "Shall not be Questioned" 2A blog, formerly "Snowflakes in Hell".
I have spoken with him a few times in email, briefly. He has always been polite and professional with me. He is what I term an NRA guy, and his audience is exactly the type of bridge-building I hope to achieve. We need not agree on every point, so long as we all agree who the real Enemies of Liberty are in society.
Cross your fingers. And check out IIIPercent.com - let me know if I have failed to list your blog. It happens, folks. I miss details. If you've linked IIIPercent.com, you deserve a recip. Just let me know.
Zoomie built a great banner to advertise his Restore the Constitution sticker, so we'll see how it goes.
Here's the link: PAGunBlog.com
Our ad will be the banner at the top when it begins running on the 28th.
And never forget, folks - I'm just the guy punching the keys on the keyboard. Zoomie is the artist who created this wonderful piece of patriotic art, and all of you who have contributed and/or bought III Gear have made this possible. Over the 4 days running at Shall not be Questioned, we should reach about 15,000 members of his audience.
Thank you all.
Kerodin
III
They must have looked over the whole site and found a Confederate Battle Flag! Goodness gracious, my dear, how horrible........
ReplyDeleteBrock, I was really surprised. Anyone who actually reads any of our sites has to conclude that racism is not tolerated. But I just can't comprehend why so many people are so politically correct that they are afraid to even talk about race.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think it serves as a healthful reminder that if the race-baiters get their way and violence erupts, there will be a very large contingent of white NRA guys who will condemn other whites who must use violence in self defense, just so they can avoid being called "racists".
We are in for a very ugly year, I am afraid.
K
So, a web site that is supposedly pro-2A parrots the complete nonsense that the Confederate flag promotes slavery. Perhaps we should all boycott the GunPundit web site because guns promote murder and genocide?
ReplyDeleteReg: GunPundit is still in play - they have not decided either way, yet.
DeleteIt is Sebastian at Shall not be Questioned that rejected us based on the flag and "...promoting symbols of slavery..."
It boggles my mind. Let's not put much faith in such NRA types being helpful when the world goes sideways.
I'll let you know as soon as GunPundit weighs-in.
K
Forgive me, but I couldn't resist sending a personal message to Mr. Murdoc:
ReplyDelete"So. Advertisement from the IIIpercent web site is unacceptable because you believe the Confederate flag - appearing on one graphic only - promotes slavery. In spite of the fact that the web site does not support racism in any fashion, our black readers have no issue with it, and you are only mindlessly parroting the PC nonsense spouted by the Left to denigrate those of Southern heritage.
How would you feel if we started a campaign amongst all other Second Amendment bloggers and readers who support liberty to boycott your web site because guns "promote murder and genocide"? Wouldn't that be as juvenile and as senseless as your knee-jerk reaction to seeing a graphic of a Confederate flag?
Aren't you the least bit ashamed of yourself? Or do you only support _certain_ rights, the ones that meet with your approval?
Sincerely,
Reg Thibodeau"
The ad didn't run immediately because it was set to start on 3/28.
DeleteSorry, Murdoc - the site that refused the ad was Sebastian's.
DeleteK
Well, now I owe Murdoc an abject apology, which I will make immediately.
Delete"Anyone who actually reads any of our sites has to conclude that racism is not tolerated"
ReplyDeleteReally?
"Young black males are far more likely to commit crimes than anyone else. Therefore, I should be on guard around groups of young black males."
That's not racist? _And_ true?
Every HR department in the country will agree: in the diversity and anti-discrimination brainwashing sessions, they'll tell you that "truth is not a defense" when it comes to prohibited statements. The immediate direct and inevitable corollary is that some true statements are racist.
It may depend on the definition of "racist". As I see it, being racist means judging someone based in part on what other people like them - people of similar race - tend to do or tend to be like - drawing conclusions about probabilities based on nothing other than race. Being non-racist or anti-racist means judging each and every individual purely on their own merits, as individuals absolutely independent of those around them.
One of those positions excludes information that actually exists and is verifiably useful in predictions, and one does not. One of those positions is stark raving nuts, and one is not.
Statistics is not imaginary. Reality is racist.
I understand if this is something you just don't want to get into for reasons of PR. But by God if there is going to be a battle for Liberty it had damn well actually be for Liberty including the Liberty to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth no matter how much it pisses some people off.
Rollory: Where did you find that quote?
ReplyDeleteIt is demonstrably true. But that's as far as that goes.
Equally true: A Christian in Riyadh is equally in jeopardy. The difference is that Islam is a choice, skin color is not.
Racist is, in my definition and the one I have most encountered on our blogs/community, the unjustified hatred or discrimination of a person based solely upon the color of his skin.
Judging people based on factors beyond their control is foolish, and I do not see much of that in our community.
Kerodin
III
Some people see certain images and automatically run the other way or assume it has a tarnished connotations. Case in point. I used to have a bumper sticker on my vehicle, that had a soviet sickle on one side and a nazi swastika on the other and in the middle it said "Governments love gun control." You would not believe how much crap I got from that bumper sticker because people would see that swastika and automatically assume I was a nazi. I even had my vehicle keyed when I was visiting my daughter in Seattle. I often told my husband that I needed a bumper sticker to put under that one that said "If you think the above bumper sticker means I'm a nazi or a communist you need to immediately enroll in your nearest English Comprehension class." Just face it, people are Morons.
ReplyDeleteMiss Violet ;)
I didn't find it, I made it up, as an example of the sort of statement I had in mind that _can_ be said, that can be supported with evidence, but is actively suppressed. My apologies if that wasn't clear.
ReplyDelete"Judging people based on factors beyond their control is foolish,"
Why?
Factors beyond their control may well affect things they do. I, for example, have a temper, and sometimes I lose it totally and suddenly. I am of the opinion that this is at least in part based on my ancestry, a portion of which had a reputation for such a trait. Is it reasonable to just pretend such things don't exist? Should someone, knowing the reputation and the ethnic relation, expect me to be no more likely than anyone else to blow my top in certain situations? That would be remarkably silly of them. In the absence of other information about me - such as observation of my being particularly careful to identify what sets me off and mitigate it, and finding ways to blow off steam in other ways - it would be only reasonable to judge based on that established tendency.
My having such a trait, however, doesn't justify my giving in to it.
OK - so your statement: "Young black males are far more likely to commit crimes than anyone else. Therefore, I should be on guard around groups of young black males."
Deleteis your own statement, and you say it can be supported?
Before I fall into default nuclear mode, let me ask you to clarify: Do you believe that it is a matter of Nature, of genetic pre-disposition, that a black child and a white child exposed to the same Nurture paradigm, raised in the same home, exposed to the same lifestyle, opportunities, parenting and social set, that the black human is more likely to commit a crime because he is black?
Are you asserting that black people are hard-wired to be "criminals" in greater proportion to whites?
K