Skip to main content

When conservatives attempt to direct themselves in a better light through GPS (General Positive Spin)

Perhaps this is a very common defense mechanism, but I'll often times see or hear conservatives face criticism for their stance on a specific issue by going what I call the general positive spin (GPS) route. Let me give you an example.

When confronted with their stance on universal healthcare and wanting to repeal Obamacare, I've heard conservatives say, "I believe in personal responsibility. I guess that makes me a right-wing extremist!"

See what was done there? They took the claims that they lacked empathy and understanding, that they didn't care about other people's well-being, about Obamacare as a specific piece of legislation, by countering that with claiming they believe in personal responsibility, before attempting to place the other side to shame by exaggerating their general-positive-spin point and saying, "I guess that makes me a right-wing extremist!"

This kind of strategy is clever on one hand, yet ridiculous on the other. It's clever because regardless of the numbers and facts that were thrown in their direction, this general-positive-spin statement essentially ends the argument. How is the other to respond to it? On the other hand, it's ridiculous, because it's a red-herring argument - diverting attention away from the main topic at hand and attempting to focus said attention on another, which shows they likely don't have many numbers and facts to counter the other's argument.

I see conservatives do this all the time. Another example is with regard to the recent gun control debate, where they'll counter another's argument by saying, "I believe in the Constitution/freedom/the Founding Fathers. I guess that makes me a right-wing extremist!"

When it comes to being against gay-marriage rights, I've heard them say, "I believe in The Bible. I guess that makes me a right-wing extremist!"

What these general-positive-spin arguments also attempt to do is place the opposing side in a poorer light. If one supports universal healthcare, then they obviously don't believe in personal responsibility according to these people. If one believes in expanded background checks on gun purchases, then I guess this person doesn't believe in the Constitution. If someone believes gays should have the right to get married, well then, he or she is anti-Bible.

The thing is, it doesn't make a person a right-wing extremist if he or she believes in "personal responsibility," "the Constitution/freedom/the Founding Fathers," or 'The Bible." What makes a person a right-wing extremist is to think a single mother working three jobs shouldn't be guaranteed healthcare. What makes a person a right-wing extremist is to think convicted criminals, including felons, shouldn't be obligated to undergo a background check at gun shows or when making firearm purchases off the internet. What makes a person a right-wing extremist is to think in a country which possesses the separation of church and state, a common interpretation of a scripture in a religious book should be reason enough to prevent certain people from getting married. When people use GPS (General Positive Spin) in an attempt to place themselves in a better light, it's simply to deny listeners and viewers from the clearer picture. If one can only defend their positions through generalities, he or she likely doesn't know the specifics to defends their positions, that or knows the specifics will run counter to their generalities which will place themselves in an even poorer light than before.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...