4 ms·

Wasn't a lot of this "soft language" the result of active and conscious work by people like Frank Luntz [0] e.g. - "energy exploration" to refer to oil drilli

Wasn't a lot of this "soft language" the result of active and conscious work by people like Frank Luntz [0] e.g. - "energy exploration" to refer to oil drilling - "climate change" instead of global warming My understanding is that he used focus groups watching video of politicians. As the politician would speak, the watchers would use dials to live rate how they felt about the words being used. In essence, he would A/B test how "soft" the language was and then pass that information on to political groups to help shape narratives etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

abdullahkhalids 3y ago
The wiki page on climate change [1] explains that climate change was already a growing to be preferred term earlier than Frank Luntz memo. Which I think is correct because it is much more accurate. There is a lot more to climate change than global warming. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  "Rapid climate change" is what I would say is the most specific term, because climates change naturally over time, but usually do so slowly enough that there is no risk to individuals. The kind of climate change due to human interactions is so rapid that individuals are at risk, for instance those who live in low-lying coastal areas. Species evolve when there is slow climate change, but rapid changes make whole clades of species extinct before they have enough generations to evolve.
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    Well, the term used for 'climate change due to human interactions' is anthropogenic climate change. Which plays exactly into George Carlin said. Why use 'anthropogenic climate change' which a regular person won't know the meaning of instead of 'human-caused climate change' or something.
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      The only change that's of global concern is the spiking energy accumulation. It's global warming, as most people would understand it from reading the link. Climate change is soft language to lump in secondary effects, to make it acceptable for deniers and special interests.
      - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
        I don't agree. The effects of humans dumping CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere is not just the increase in the average temperature. It is increased variability in temperatures. It is extreme droughts and extreme floods (which occurred in Pakistan last year). It is extreme tropical storms. It is historical levels of forest fires (such as what we saw in Canada this year). Etc etc. All of these things are cause for concern. Climate change is a much more accurate term than global warming, even if climate deniers use it to their ends. The opposite effect also occurs. People in Canada will joke, "oh global warming is great, maybe it will warm up here a bit." But talk about forest fires and it is much harder for them to disregard the concerns.
        Supermancho 3y ago
        > It is increased variability in temperatures. Again, this is splitting hairs by pointing to secondary effects and saying "it's more than one thing" when the root cause is singular.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
    Short on time or I'd say more. Worth a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
seabass-labrax 3y ago
Reading the Wikipedia article you link, I'm wondering whether Luntz's work covers the whole story. For instance: > Frank Luntz, whose polling revealed that 'death tax' sparked voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' couldn't match. After all, who wouldn't be opposed to a 'tax on death'? - Joshua Green, The American Prospect In Britain, the term has been 'death duty' colloquially for decades, with 'inheritance tax' and 'capital transfer tax' both having been formal names. Yet, I haven't seen a particularly preference for the term being associated with an political ideology. Generally, the British public and their representatives just use whatever term is 'in'. Does this make British politicians less shrewd, make them more respectable, or simply make Luntz's research an American edge case?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

The wiki page on climate change [1] explains that climate change was already a growing to be preferred term earlier than Frank Luntz memo. Which I think is correct because it is much more accurate. There is a lot more to climate change than global warming. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology

seabass-labrax 3y ago
"Rapid climate change" is what I would say is the most specific term, because climates change naturally over time, but usually do so slowly enough that there is no risk to individuals. The kind of climate change due to human interactions is so rapid that individuals are at risk, for instance those who live in low-lying coastal areas. Species evolve when there is slow climate change, but rapid changes make whole clades of species extinct before they have enough generations to evolve.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  Well, the term used for 'climate change due to human interactions' is anthropogenic climate change. Which plays exactly into George Carlin said. Why use 'anthropogenic climate change' which a regular person won't know the meaning of instead of 'human-caused climate change' or something.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    The only change that's of global concern is the spiking energy accumulation. It's global warming, as most people would understand it from reading the link. Climate change is soft language to lump in secondary effects, to make it acceptable for deniers and special interests.
    - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
      I don't agree. The effects of humans dumping CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere is not just the increase in the average temperature. It is increased variability in temperatures. It is extreme droughts and extreme floods (which occurred in Pakistan last year). It is extreme tropical storms. It is historical levels of forest fires (such as what we saw in Canada this year). Etc etc. All of these things are cause for concern. Climate change is a much more accurate term than global warming, even if climate deniers use it to their ends. The opposite effect also occurs. People in Canada will joke, "oh global warming is great, maybe it will warm up here a bit." But talk about forest fires and it is much harder for them to disregard the concerns.
      - Supermancho 3y ago
        > It is increased variability in temperatures. Again, this is splitting hairs by pointing to secondary effects and saying "it's more than one thing" when the root cause is singular.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
  Short on time or I'd say more. Worth a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

seabass-labrax 3y ago

Reading the Wikipedia article you link, I'm wondering whether Luntz's work covers the whole story. For instance: > Frank Luntz, whose polling revealed that 'death tax' sparked voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' couldn't match. After all, who wouldn't be opposed to a 'tax on death'? - Joshua Green, The American Prospect In Britain, the term has been 'death duty' colloquially for decades, with 'inheritance tax' and 'capital transfer tax' both having been formal names. Yet, I haven't seen a particularly preference for the term being associated with an political ideology. Generally, the British public and their representatives just use whatever term is 'in'. Does this make British politicians less shrewd, make them more respectable, or simply make Luntz's research an American edge case?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]