From WhyNotWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Spin  edit   (Category  edit)


It hurts when people misunderstand you. But at least you have to cut them some slack -- maybe they heard some misinformation somewhere, maybe they haven't yet heard the other side of the story...

But those who do the purveying of said misinformation do not deserve any slack from me -- only my outrage. And what is spin (usually) but a dishonest coloring/tinting of the actual truth, to make it appear in your favor, while concealing the other half of the truth that you don't want your readers/hearers to see.

Yes, it infuriates me (makes me rather upset or indignant) when people intentionally paint with a negative spin ideologies that I believe in, causing readers (hearers) who might have previously been neutral or even sympathetic with said ideologies/issues/viewpoints to now misunderstand our motives/beliefs/etc. and to needlessly foster ill-will towards "us".

Perhaps they purvey this spin because that's all they know -- because they were fed this misinformation, because they misunderstand "us", and so they have only that meager [information vacuum] to go off of.

Well, stop it. If you haven't done your research, if all you have is hearsay, then don't purvey it! Stop right now. Give the other guy the benefit of the doubt until you have damning evidence to the contrary.

I am likely on the verge of hypocrisy here -- I probably spin too -- but in the ideal world, I can at least say, there would be no spin. (Duh?)

Political spin

[Politics (category)]

(Or is all spin political in nature?)

It is so polarizing and brain-washing. I hate it!

I blame it for much of the hopeless polarization that we see in America today.

Again and again, the left claims [alignment, ...] with such [radiantly] positive ideals as "choice", "freedom", "civil liberties", "privacy", "defending the constitution", ... Who's not for those things? Obviously, most people would agree that those are good, wonderful, desirable things! So by portraying themselves (spinning) as aligned with those good things, supporters of those good things, "pro-" those things, etc. and portraying "the other guy" as being "anti-" those things, they aim to gain some really cheap points simply by alleging association with those good things. (They don't have to prove anything. Oh no! They merely have to get you to read their left-wing propaganda and then they can say anything they want, and can be reasonably confident that the average American will blindly fall for it without checking the veracity of any associations they are implicitly claiming...)


Civil "rights", women's "rights"

http://www.defconamerica.org/our-issues/right-to-privacy/index.html. Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

DefCon opposes the religious right's war on our personal privacy. We will confront them when they seek to limit a woman's right to safely prevent and end a pregnancy and when they seek to abridge equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans.

"Privacy"?? The religious right is not at war on anyone's privacy. With regard to the "secular left's" (if you're going to call them the "religious right") inclination to murder innocent unborn humans (how's that for spin), it's not a matter of privacy: it's a matter of the sanctity of life, the right of all human life, and the ethics of killing those human lives.

(Perhaps this isn't even an example of spin? It's more an example of fallacy. What kind is it? Straw man? What's privacy have to do with this?)

"Abridge equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans"? I don't believe this is about "equal rights". Anyway, your spin is certainly showing here. Are we talking about the alleged "right" that a gay man has to "marry" another gay man? That's not a "right". That's a radical distortion of what the concept of marriage is. It's no more a right than it would be a man's unalienable "equal right" to be allowed to compete in the "Miss America" pageant. That pageant, by definition, is comprised of females. Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman.

Do I believe gays should have rights? Sure! The right to live, work, pay taxes, frolic in the snow, whatever ... sure. But not to be "married" or to raise children. That's not a family.

None of this has to do with "privacy". But by appealing to association with such a positive concept as privacy, they hope to gain sympathy.

Apparently this is what it has to do with privacy... http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm. Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

David Seldin, a spokesman for NARAL, a leading abortion-rights group, said:

"People have come to understand that the essence of this issue is privacy. It's fair to say that the other side did a good job of defining this bill in their terms, but the health issue goes to the heart of the matter, which is the private relationship between a woman and her doctor. It's about the most intimate and personal a decision there is as possible."

On http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm, they allege that the "Religious Right" is "at war" "against women" with their heading "The War Against Women". But that, in my opinion, is completely untrue. The Religious Right is hardly "against women". They simply have a different opinion regarding abortion/life rights than you do, that's all.

This site also attempts to discredit the Religious Right by pointing to their belief in this passage in Scripture: "Wives, submit to your own husband as to the lord, For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church." They will read that in the worst way, assume it means all Christians today believe women are inferior/subordinates to men or some such nonsense, and completely fail to take into account the context of that passage and the culture in which Paul was writing. Just because the authors of this site don't know the proper interpretation of this passage, does not mean that everyone in the "Religious Right" shares in your misunderstanding of the Bible.

Pro-choice, Pro-life

Why can't we just stick to calling it "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion"?? Why? Because of the spin factor. Because spin works. And by either side using only positive, friendly-sounding words like "choice" and "life" (everyone is in favor of both of these concepts! they are not mutually exclusive! ... except when put in the context of abortion), it makes people more [sympathetic] towards (likely to be in favor of) their side.

Neither side wants to sound negative by being "anti" something.

And by hiding behind the [moniker] of "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion", they put an entirely different spin on things: they make it sound like it's all about a women's right to choose what she wants to do with her [body], her pregnancy, her reproduction.

It spares them from the assumption people would have that they are for abortion in any case/situation/etc.-- even for the weak reason of "it would be inconvenient to have a baby in my life right now". People are [forced] to assume they're not crazy about abortion itself, but simply want to be able to have that option available to them when there is a really good reason for it (like when the mother's health is in danger from the pregnancy). Of course, that's giving them too much credit, but I'm sure they'd rather you incorrectly err on that side and assume that than err on the side of believing they are abortion-crazy [] who just want to go around having rampant free sex and aborting every pregnancy regardless.


(Move to its own article? With a subsection for examples of spin related to homophobia...)

They call us "homophobes" -- which implies that we fear homosexuals -- because we disapprove of homosexual behavior and believe it is immoral and sinful. How is that "fearing" homosexuals? We fear them only inasmuch as we don't want them to gain power and take away our rights (which we believe they want to do), such as our right to protest and speak against homosexuality, or our right to not have our children bombarded with "homosexuality is normal and okay" messages/propaganda at schools.

Fear is not the right word (disapproval would be a better word).

We are not homophobes any more than you are "heterophobes" or "Republicanphobes" or "Godphobes".

http://www.theocracywatch.org/homophob.htm. Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

"Who and what is next?" Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force responded to the President's support of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage:

"If he endorses amendments such as this, which blatantly discriminates against a class of people, you would then have to wonder who and what is next."

Ms. Sklar's statement brings to mind another time in history. One of Hitler's first acts after taking office on January 30, 1933 was to ban homosexual organizations. From the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

"Soon after taking office on January 30, 1933, Hitler banned all homosexual and lesbian organizations. Brownshirted storm troopers raided the institutions and gathering places of homosexuals."

Sounds like these homosexual activists are the ones who are afraid -- afraid that we'll take away other "rights" besides gay marriage, afraid that we'll behave like the Nazis and raid homosexual gathering places. Should I then now start calling them "heterophobes"?

To me, it appears that this article is meant to [incite] fear of these "homophobes". It poses hypothetical situations -- "what's next?", "maybe they'll target something else next". Nope, I doubt it. Just because someone is against the "right" of homosexual "marriage" does not mean we're keen on taking away anybody's actual rights (= there's nothing to be afraid of). / They show scare pictures of book burnings and tell stories of the bad things the Nazis did to homosexuals, and then imply that those who oppose homosexual "marriages" in America are somehow guilty of that or are likely to do that "next". Ridiculous! Speaking for myself anyway, I may freely and publically burn any pro-homosexual books that I happen to own, but I'm not going to raid anyone else's property and burn their books (or whatever other nonsense they are insinuating)!

We conservatives are only putting up such a stink, as it were, about homosexuality because we feel attacked and feel our liberties are being threatened. We're alarmed by all the homosexual activism and are reacting to it. We're We're the ones on the defensive here, so you can't be on the defensive too!

Whose liberties are being threatened here? It could be argued either way. It's all a matter of perspective. I for one speak from the perspective of seeing what happened to the Philadelphia 11 and being alarmed at how people were unfairly detained and charged with felonies merely for peaceably protesting against homosexuality. We're the ones on the defensive. (I guess that's why they call us "conservatives", huh?)

http://www.defconamerica.org/ DefCon - Defending the Constitution

By aligning themselves with the noble cause of defending the Constitution -- something no American would possibly oppose -- they are implicitly making the [claim] that their viewpoints are those which best defend and uphold the Constitution, whereas any viewpoints contrary to their own must naturally be opposed to the Constitution and want to [dismantle] it.

But this spin -- this implicit allegation -- is unfair, untrue, and unwanted! They're basically spinning the idea that conservatives as a rule don't care about the Constitution, which of course is patent nonsense.

I'd like to prove to you that I'm right...

http://www.defconamerica.org/our-issues/Defending-Science/. Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

DefCon opposes the religious right's interference in our children's education, including attempts to teach religious rhetoric rather than scientific fact. DefCon would oppose all efforts to incorporate creationism or intelligent design into school curricula and fight to maintain science curricula based on scientific fact. As Kenneth R. Brown, professor of biology at Brown University, said on the first day of the Dover, PA, intelligent design trial, "scientific theories are not hunches. When we say 'theory,' we mean a strong, overarching explanation that ties together many facts and enables us to make testable predictions." We do not oppose exposing our children to philosophical and spiritual discussion around the origin and meaning of life -- just not in the context of teaching science in a public school science classroom. Eighty years after the Scopes trial, teaching evolution continues to be a flash point for the religious right. While the pseudoscience has seen limited gains, DefCon has proven to be a formidable force in the fight against the religious right's war on science. The front lines of the battle today include:

That's pretty biased. They incorrectly claim that the evolution is based solely on scientific fact, forgetting that huge parts of it wild speculation, but then implies that creationism is based merely on "hunches" and that there is no evidence for it. How untrue that is!

Let the scientific evidence for creation be taught and given the same consideration that the evidence for evolution is given. That's all I ask. Or at least let teachers show the gaping holes in evolution and show how there is room for other interpretations of the evidence.

"Religious right's war on science". Etc. This is atheistic spin. Religion and science are not at war with each other, are not incompatible.

http://www.defconamerica.org/our-issues/right-to-privacy/. Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

DefCon opposes the religious right's war on our personal privacy. We will confront them when they seek to limit a woman's right to safely prevent and end a pregnancy and when they seek to abridge equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans. Key issues relating to personal privacy include:

  • Protecting the civil liberties of gay and lesbian Americans from the cynical onslaught of anti-gay legislation, especially regarding same sex marriage, adoption and child custody. Click to read more about the religious right's assault on the civil liberties of gay and lesbian Americans.


Retrieved from "http://whynotwiki.com/Spin"
Personal tools