5 ms·
Think of it this way. Let's say the two of us were talking. And your real name was John Smith (making this up, I have no idea and not relevant). I had a choice
by mkramlich 13y ago
Think of it this way. Let's say the two of us were talking. And your real name was John Smith (making this up, I have no idea and not relevant). I had a choice between referring to you as "idiot" or "John." The latter is factually correct, neutral and lacks emotional triggers.
Using your logic, you shouldn't call Social Security Social Security you should call it FDR Forced Set Asides. Because you know, nobody likes being forced by the government to set aside their hard earned cash by some politician, and one who's personally and solely responsible for that happening. And which has absolutely no upside to it at all, of course. But wait, that wouldn't be true. So people don't do that. They call it Social Security. Because that is it's name, and is less loaded, and more politically neutral.
- aestra 13y agoUm, I don't consider "Obamacare" emotional, I consider it neutral. I just think it's a catchy nickname for legislation. It is neither negative or positive.
- awj 13y ago> Um, I don't consider "Obamacare" emotional, I consider it neutral. Read some of the opposition to it. For many people it is not a neutral name.
- gnaritas 13y agoIt doesn't matter what you consider it, it matters what others consider it and it most certainly is emotional to most. That the affordable care act polls higher than Obamacare should make that clear to you.
- aestra 13y agoOk, is it supposed to be negative or positive?
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoThe real name isn't really neutral either. You have to consider at least a little bit that having the word "affordable" in the name is naturally going to bias people toward it. I doubt the Subsidized Care Act would poll very favorably.
- gnaritas 13y agoThe real name doesn't have to be neutral, it has the benefit of being the actual name and thus is correct to use when you are being neutral.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoYou said: That the affordable care act polls higher than Obamacare should make that clear to you. So I meant during the polling... one name already had bias baked into it by using the word affordable rather than the word subsidized. Not many people are keen on subsidies when you call them subsidies. But if you just say something is now more affordable and don't tell people it is more affordable because it is subsidized, you have baked in a bias from the start. So naturally that bias is going to be reflected in more favorable polling results.