|
02 Feb 05 - 09:10 AM (#1396735) Subject: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: GUEST,Amos I thought it might be a good idea if we had a thread inwhich we could identify the subtle shifts of definitions used by public officials to change public thinking. Public by changing the definitions is not a new subject, but a time-honored political practice. Here's an insightful article about some current ones going on. For example, the "gutting" of Social Security is not called "privatization" any more -- did you know that? No, no....it's "personal accounts". I guess privatization reminds people of the USSR or something. And in Republican dialogue, it's the "Democrat" party now. Wouldn't want to imply there was anything democratic about it, huh? As Ole Willy said, it all depends on what "is" means, I guess. Ya think? Enjoy the link and let's hear about it if you notice any slippery definitions gradually being shifted for personal or political gain. A |
|
02 Feb 05 - 09:28 AM (#1396744) Subject: RE: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: GUEST,Rapaire From "Doublespeak" by Mark Lutz: Because the "fairness doctrine" was only a FCC rule and lacked the standing of law, Congress passed a bill in 1982 that would have made the "fairness doctrine" law. President Reagan vetoed the bill, saying that it was "antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment." Thus does the requirement that all siddes be heard on controversial public issues become "censorship." In 1982, Treasury Sec. Don Regan defined "full employment" as 6.5% unemployment. In 1964, a 6.5% unemployment rate was the cause for LBJ's Great Society and the War on Poverty. People don't dye their hair, they tint it or use a rinse. When was the last time you got new false teeth -- or did you get dentures? Do you still sweat, or do you suffer from nervous wetness (which I thought, the first time I heard it, that you had stage fright so badly that you'd peed in your pants)? And let's not forget about pre-emptive strikes. That's not the same thing as shooting first. |
|
02 Feb 05 - 12:16 PM (#1396800) Subject: RE: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: GUEST,Bee-dubya... |
|
02 Feb 05 - 12:25 PM (#1396805) Subject: RE: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: GUEST,Bee-dubya... HIT THE "TAB" KEY, NOT THE "ENTER" KEY, DUMBASS! Anyway, I believe referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat" party has been Republican SOP for some time. I remember hearing some discussion of that during, I think, the 1968 GOP convention. Seems like some Democrats had mentioned that the correct name of the party is "Democratic" and the Republicans had pretty much said "We'll call ya whatever we damned well please." |
|
02 Feb 05 - 03:22 PM (#1396934) Subject: RE: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: GUEST,Mrr 1984, anyone? How about "peacekeepers?" |
|
02 Feb 05 - 03:26 PM (#1396943) Subject: RE: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: GUEST,Rapaire So why don't the Democrats start calling the Republicans "Whigs" or "Tories" or better yet, "Federalists"? That kind of thing CAN work both ways. |
|
02 Feb 05 - 03:41 PM (#1396957) Subject: RE: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: Teresa visually-impaired/sightless/special needs/person with a disability Er, hi, my name is Teresa, and I am a human being. :) team-player detention center property value compassionate conservative friendly fire collateral damage |
|
02 Feb 05 - 04:14 PM (#1397023) Subject: RE: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: Amos Hi, Teresa!!! A |
|
02 Feb 05 - 06:25 PM (#1397173) Subject: RE: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: GUEST,Sidewinder It is all a case of style over substance, or content. After all; this is the age of the soundbite.By saying as little as possible in as many words as possible it has a comforting effect on the population. Because we don't have to know what they are talking about, we just like to think they know what they are talking about. If you see what I mean.In redefining terms it also creates an assumption that we are moving forward rather than stagnating and gives scope for reinterpretation of established existing meanings to lull us into a false sense of security. The upshot being; that they keep there jobs for the foreseeable future and we complain about nothing changing.Ain't life terrific! Regards. Sidewinder. |
|
02 Feb 05 - 06:44 PM (#1397192) Subject: RE: BS: 'PR By Redefining Terms' Is Your Friend From: Rapparee visually-impaired/sightless/special needs/person with a disability Er, hi, my name is Teresa, and I am a human being. :) Teresa is one cool person who happens to be blind. (I myself wear glasses, but only so I can see better.) team-player Teresa plays well with others. detention center Teresa is not in jail, at least as far as I know. property value Teresa is one hot property! compassionate conservative Teresa is not one, nope. friendly fire Know to Infantry folks around the world as "Holy SHIT!! Them goddman cannoncrackers/flyboys have f****d up AGAIN!!!" collateral damage See "friendly fire," above |