Philosophy Now Forum

per Russia, i guess i can take solace in the fact that America is an ocean way, so as we decay culturally and our gov turns into a klepocracy, Russia has not interest in "owing us".

if i were a Lativan, Estonian, Finn, or Pole my fear would be immediate, Russia's (Putin is Russia BTW) goal has been clear for a decade, a restoration of all lands the USSR had (germany? not gonna happen) - the Baltics, Poland, Finland, Ukraine...............yep, mileage will very depending upon resolve (I see no resolve - just limp wristed Chamberlainisms).

Kaliningrad is key - the Exclave of Russia cannot be accepted! fully expect at least one of the Baltic states to be invaded to allow a connection to Kaliningrad.

and expect no response from American or Western Europe (sadly too cowed to peace to reply to bulligerance - which is just a matter of time IMO).

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 11:24 pmGot a minute? Let me tell you about Hex.
He is a tall man 5’ 3” or less but that’s his anus. And he has trouble dressing in the barn because his pants won’t fit over his head. His brain is in his stomach (or lower) and he has an unusual perception of dung. He goes fishing on this forum but, if caught, you can refuse his tongue.
Hex and I are exchanging insults so there is no reason to fear. He and I are friendly.

The man at the door,
I fear his every word,
For they pierce my heart
Like he stabbed it with a sword.

Yet Hex has a bologna.

LOL! Scorned bitch can't handle the truth, IQ 80 and are in general just a sore loser!

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 7:08 pm "I would define spin as the shaping of events to make you look better than anybody else. I think it is . . . an art form now and it gets in the way of the truth." (Benjamin Bradlee, executive editor of The Washington Post)

What is spin and how does it work?

Is it effective?

It seems to be a way of controlling thinking or persuading.

I think that many people are not aware of spin, spinning techniques and how to deal with it.

I can start a thread with a stated purpose but do I really have that purpose or am I setting up the participants?

Only time will tell.

But what do other people think about when i say "spin"?

Hi Jayjacobus,


I think it's fair to say that the terms "spin" and "spindoctor" (a master of the art of "spin") still chiefly refer to the political domain in the West (US and UK, etc.) For instance, when I hear someone nearby mention the word spindoctor" in a conversation I immediately tend think that s/he is discussing to a politician or the machinations of party politics.


Broadly speaking, to "put spin on" means to knowingly provide a biased interpretation of an event or campaign in order to persuade public opinion in favour of some organization or public figure. Therefore you might say that "spin" is, strictly speaking, "rhetoric" (the art of persuasion), it is, but because it is largely associated with politics and politicians, "spin" also implies the use of very disingenuous, deceptive, duplicitous and manipulative tactics. It is not, BTW, a way of controlling thinking, it is a way influencing thinking (mind/thought-control refers to states like hypnosis, or involves the use on sujbects/patients of certain psychoactive drugs like: Sodium Pentothal, LSD-25, Ketamine, etc.)


As far as British politics is concerned, the most artful and notorious political spindoctor of the 20th century was the Labour Party spindoctor, Peter Mandelson (who was as "slippery as a jellied eel" and is currently a very wealthy Labour peer in the House of Lords !). Many political pundits would agree that Peter Mandelson played a pivotal role in the election of Tony Blair's Labour government in the UK in 1997, he was one of Prime Minister Tony Blair's most trusted confidants and government spindoctor -in-chief par excellence. I well recall Blair's "New Labour" government in power as I am interested in politics as was living near London in 1997 when Labour won the General Election that year -the 1st May 1997 was a very black day for Britain. And I can clearly remember how in those days Peter Mandelson was seemingly forever on the 6:00pm news on telly, or radio BBC or in the British tabloid press ( tabloids like "The Sun" and "The Mirror" had considerable political influence back in those days - I'm not sure if the same is the true now) pushing the Blair government's line on some issue or other.


Mandelson was an extremely intelligent man with a gift for oratory ( I don't mean, the grand speech-making- before- an- audience -of- 1000's oratory, rather a speaking style that was perfectly urbane, lucid, civil and earnest, ideal for talking to the media/government press conferences, etc.) At the same time, however, he was a master of the black rhetorical arts(i.e. : guile; dissimulation; speciousness; evasion; cunning; chicanery; graft; misrepresentation ,etc). This is why, eventually, he earned himself the national nickname "Prince of Darkness" ("The Sun" newspaper were responsible for this moniker, if I recall); as he was gay, the British Tabloid press also called him "Mandy" . I don't think a tabloid could get away with that kind of light-hearted taunt in today's PC climate (!) (Such a shame things got so PC, no one is allowed to have a laugh anymore.I remember the "Sun" tabloid running a headline that was something like "MANDY, "PRINCE OF DARKNESS", TANGLED IN OWN WEB" (It draws on the line from Shakespeare: "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive") after Mandelson was caught fiddling the books and stealing money on one occasion, which made me smile. Basically, Peter Mandelson (and professional spindoctors in general) are not the kind of people you would choose for friends, they are not the kind of people you would want to have a few pints and a pleasant chat with, at your local pub on Friday night.


Actually, if I may briefly diverge for a moment on the topic of the British tabloid press, my favourite "Sun" tabloid front page I still have an original front page from 31 May, 1992, framed on my kitchen wall) was published the day after a raucous mob of anti-war protesters ("anarchists !" according to the "Sun") in London heckled an elderly Queen Mother while she was unveiling a statue of "Bomber Harris."
To give you some quick background, during the Second World War, Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, was the British RAF officer who was put in charge of carpet-bombing a number of cities in Germany, like Dresden and Hamburg. Due to the indiscriminate nature of "carpet bombing" 1000's of German civilians lost their lives. Anyway, after the statue was unveiled, the gang of protesters squirted copious amounts of tomato sauce over the revealed statue of Bomber Harris (to symbolise blood) and made loud, derogatory interjections as the Queen Mother then tried to make a dedication speech. On its front page the next morning "The Sun" printed in large letters "HUN SCUM BOO MUM !" I thought that was hilarious, but of course, today it would be too politically incorrect to publish in any national newspaper (bound to offend the delicate sensibilities of some neo-Nazi !)To give you some more of an idea just much times have changed wrt political correctness, when the pop star Elton John married his long-time partner David Furness in a civil union ceremony in December, 2005, The Sun newspaper's front page the next morning featured a photograph of the newly wed gay couple with the headline: ELTON TAKES DAVID UP THE AISLE"; imagine what would happen if a national tabloid were to do that today !!


You mentioned that you think many people are not aware of the fact they are being fed "spin". I agree. The whole idea of well-crafted "spin" is that it is (ideally) indetectable. A "gifted" spindocter, like Peter Mandelson, was far too clever for the average British citizen. Although he never did fool the more intelligent and educated persons in society for too long; the problem was that the later were a minority cohort and therefore relatively lacking in political power. (I mean unable to effectively sound the tocsin for the general public) So, in answer to your question is spin effective, my response would be , Yes it can be extremely effective, if your political party (or organisation)is using a team of good - quality, reliable spindoctors. As well as Peter Mandelson, Blair had Alasdair Campbell working for him (another top -class spindoctor) and two or three other government"spinners" beside, and that is a part of the reason why Blair and "New Labour" - who were incompetent and not fit to govern Britain - managed to stay in power so long.(BTW, Politics is a very rough game, and it will not surprise you if I say that apart from being devious, disingenuous, manipulative and duplicitous, Mandelson was also an extremely ruthless (cold-hearted) operator).


I think, finally, that it is fair to stay all organisations who are pursuing some particular goal or purpose, in particular where that purpose chiefly involves making money (profit) use "spin" and "spindoctor", they don't call them that of course, rather they are "Public Relations Consultants" , "Media Liaison Officers" , etc, etc. But IMO, if someone asks you what "spin" is, or what a "spindoctor" is then those terms chiefly pertain to the world of party politics in the West.


I think I've answered all of your questions... Ah, no I haven't. You asked: "How does spin work"?


I have to go now, so here's a quick and very basic 5-second example. The Labour Party in Australian is currently campaigning for a General Election to be held later this year. Labour want to maximize their female vote, the Labour Leader is therefore making a lot of noise about how he is going to increase government spending for "Womens' Reproductive Health." That is how you "spin" the political message "pro-abortion." Like I say, this is very basic "spin", a good "spindoctor" draws an arsenal of FAR more subtle rhetorical devices.


Regards


Dachshund

Thank you for your well thought out and exemplified post.

In the US Newt Gingrich is a master of spin but only one of many.

Joe Biden on the other hand is not.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:04 pm Thnk you for your well thought out and exemplified post.

In the US Newt Gingrich is a master of spin but only one of many.

Joe Biden on the other hand is not.

Re American Politics...

Barack Obama was a very skilful "spinmeister" (a master of rhetorical "smooth talk") , likewise Hillary Clinton (and her husband). Both of them put the spin on identity politics, for example. Thankfully, Hillary was beaten in 2016; identity politics is already tearing America apart, and Hillary as President would have just poured petrol on the flames). I agree that Joe Biden is a "straight shooter", but he is not a contender for the Democrat's Presidential candidacy as he is too old (in years), that, and his views are seen to be too old fashioned/outdated by today's generation of Democrat politicians.

I am a Conservative, so I like Trump, but personal bias aside, I think Trump pretty much speaks his mind honestly (at least on the big, important national issues), and usually very bluntly (!) You may not like what he has to say about issues X,Y and Z, but Trump doesn't really use "spin" to try and sell his political agenda, and that's very refreshing. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were much the same, what they said to the people, was what they believed and what they meant, and what they said they DID, or at least tried very hard to do.

Regards

Dachshund

Both Trump and the democrats are spinning the Mueller report. But who is a master and who is an amateur.

I think that Trump is not an amateur at all. I can't identify the Democrat that is a master.

I say this because you are biased but I hope I am not allowing my biases to affect my analysis.

Dachshund wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:38 pm I agree that Joe Biden is a "straight shooter", but he is not a contender for the Democrat's Presidential candidacy as he is too old (in years), that, and his views are seen to be too old fashioned/outdated by today's generation of Democrat politicians.

Regards

Dachshund

You have changed the issue from "spin" to "he is too old (in years), that, and his views are seen to be too old fashioned/outdated by today's generation of Democrat politicians."

No?

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:58 pm

Dachshund wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:38 pm I agree that Joe Biden is a "straight shooter", but he is not a contender for the Democrat's Presidential candidacy as he is too old (in years), that, and his views are seen to be too old fashioned/outdated by today's generation of Democrat politicians.

Regards

Dachshund

You have changed the issue from "spin" to "he is too old (in years), that, and his views are seen to be too old fashioned/outdated by today's generation of Democrat politicians."

No?

"Spindoctoring is a dark art". Let's face it, politics is a dirty, nasty and brutal game, so all major political leaders in the West have spindoctors on their staff, and they all personally "put some spin on the ball" to a certain extent. The question is to what extent? Tony Blair's whole government ran on "spin", with Blair in power you never knew if what he or his government ministers were saying was credulous or some kind of crafty dissimulation. When I said that I thought Joe Biden was a "straight shooter", I mean that he was basically a trustworthy, honest politician ( well, as honest as a politician can be ) not a spinmeister. Joe Biden is an old-school Democrat, he hails from the days when the US Democrats were doing what they are supposed to do, i.e; providing a voice for working class Americans. The Democrats today have lurched to the (socialist) Left; they've lost the plot, and I would predict they are going to take a thrashing in the 2020 election.

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 2:17 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:58 pm

Dachshund wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 1:38 pm I agree that Joe Biden is a "straight shooter", but he is not a contender for the Democrat's Presidential candidacy as he is too old (in years), that, and his views are seen to be too old fashioned/outdated by today's generation of Democrat politicians.

Regards

Dachshund

You have changed the issue from "spin" to "he is too old (in years), that, and his views are seen to be too old fashioned/outdated by today's generation of Democrat politicians."

No?

"Spindoctoring is a dark art". Let's face it, politics is a dirty, nasty and brutal game, so all major political leaders in the West have spindoctors on their staff, and they all personally "put some spin on the ball" to a certain extent. The question is to what extent? Tony Blair's whole government ran on "spin", with Blair in power you never knew if what he or his government ministers were saying was credulous or some kind of crafty dissimulation. When I said that I thought Joe Biden was a "straight shooter", I mean that he was basically a trustworthy, honest politician ( well, as honest as a politician can be ) not a spinmeister. Joe Biden is an old-school Democrat, he hails from the days when the US Democrats were doing what they are supposed to do, i.e; providing a voice for working class Americans. The Democrats today have lurched to the (socialist) Left; they've lost the plot, and I would predict they are going to take a thrashing in the 2020 election.

Regards

Dachshund

You misunderstood my post about Joe Biden. I am not a supporter. I merely point out his handicap. He won't win the presidency because he is not artful not because he isn't capable.

Certain congressmen are saying that the Russians have been exonerated by Mueller. Can that be true or are they spinning "exonerated"? For what reason do they want to shut down the ongoing investigation? They seem to be covering for Putin.

Dachshund wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 2:17 pm

"Spindoctoring is a dark art". Let's face it, politics is a dirty, nasty and brutal game, so all major political leaders in the West have spindoctors on their staff, and they all personally "put some spin on the ball" to a certain extent. The question is to what extent? Tony Blair's whole government ran on "spin", with Blair in power you never knew if what he or his government ministers were saying was credulous or some kind of crafty dissimulation. When I said that I thought Joe Biden was a "straight shooter", I mean that he was basically a trustworthy, honest politician ( well, as honest as a politician can be ) not a spinmeister. Joe Biden is an old-school Democrat, he hails from the days when the US Democrats were doing what they are supposed to do, i.e; providing a voice for working class Americans. The Democrats today have lurched to the (socialist) Left; they've lost the plot, and I would predict they are going to take a thrashing in the 2020 election.

Regards

Dachshund

Bidon is my man, a 70's men for the "iittle man" - "working class"

and ya, today's Dem Party are not that *reichbugs" ain't either - they want a Rich theocratic aristocracy ruling over the pleabs- and why i'm a registered Indempentant (would be reg Libertarian - but my state does not see "libertarians" as legal political pary and so impossible to register as one) - ya sad.

Obama was old school 70's Dem BTW - he never ran on being "black" -----the rest of the "system"/media made a huge deal out of him being "Black" - Obama never did - and i think it pised him off, he was/is a universal humanist like me (70's melting pot dem (assimilation is not a 4 letter word)- not multiculture/pc trible crap).

my 2 cents.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 2:55 pm
You misunderstood my post about Joe Biden. I am not a supporter. I merely point out his handicap. He won't win the presidency because he is not artful not because he isn't capable.

sadly i fear you are correct,

I like both Biden and Sanders, but both sadly are not phoney enough to win.

we will get another phoney asshole, as we usaully do, since most folks have shit for brains.

Denunciation by definition is the public condemnation of someone.

It uses insulting, abusive, or highly critical language.

It is very, very difficult to defend against denunciation because each word must be countered with logic and evidence but it cannot be dismissed in total unless the denunciator can be shown to be deceitful.

But he is deceitful almost always. The target may have a difficult time calling the denunciator "deceitful" but that is his only defense and he should say so. He should not counter each invective because that only calls attention to the deceitful tirade.

The tirade is meant to spin the target's accomplishments with damaging language with no foundation whatsoever.

Of course a person who uses insulting language over and over is guilty of spin and should be exposed.

Blow smoke means
"try to mislead or threaten someone by giving false or exaggerated information"

Putin blew smoke at our country, but not one single person was fooled.