Such carefully crafted language!
Recently I have seen more bold evidence of news sources and politicians carefully crafting their speaking. Why is this important? I mean words are
just words right? I do not believe so. Words have power. Words incite war or peace, and can create happiness and joy. Words are carefully selected,
crafted, and broadcast over and over and over and over and over
(see what I did there?) to cement them into the
collective psyche of a nation. This is done in the same way marketing departments spend obscene amounts of money creating jingles, tag-lines, and
mottos to prominently relate what they want you to relate to their products. 
(Buh du bum
ba buh, I’m lovin’…)
Maybe it was a lack of my own personal awareness, but I have stood up to notice that these changes are happening at a more rapid rate. Because my
point of reference may be skewed I fully admit that I do not have all the answers, so this is my opinion. Changes were subtle at first but now are
what I can only call a desperate increase in fervor and demand from our politicians and then media decrying what our words on important issues should
be. The result is that we have a more knee-jerk reaction and swift attempt to change the national dialogue into some unrecognizable nebulous bile that
does not resemble the actual core of the problem (I will touch on this again in a bit).
Some notable lexicon changes:
Obamacare = Affordable Care Act
Illegal Immigrants = Undocumented Workers
Global Warming = Climate Change
Political Correctness = Diversity Training
Feminism = Woman’s Lib = Equal Opportunity
Republican = Conservative
Democrat = Liberal
Unborn child = fetus
The most recent that caught my attention:
Abortion = End of life infant care?
Now it can be argued that some of these terms were loosely related (or strongly related) from the start. This is absolutely true. Some of the
terminology is closely linked with the predecessor. This does not matter to me much and I will explain after I share perspective on both sides of an
argument listed above. This isn’t a debate about climate change to show a change in wording.
Climate change and Global Warming are closely related to one another however, it is difficult for a casual reader to understand how polar vortices
shocking a region with artic ice can be attributed to ‘warming’. So the subtle change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ is had in
the dialogue. The language IS important. Instigators who have the best intentions in this scenario say it is because the people need to understand
that global warming and climate change are intimately related and refer to changes in global climate due to human contribution of greenhouse gasses.
It isn’t just a mere fact of the globe getting warming, it’s affecting global climate. I am sure they have the best intentions and sound rationale
for the shift in wording, and hope to expand the layman’s knowledge of the issue
Standing on the other side of the spectrum is a completely different argument. These changes are NOT innocent interchangeable uses of language, but
instead deliberate obfuscation of a wider conspiracy. Others may not have the best intentions at heart and would change ‘global warming’ to
‘climate change’ to hop around the issue. They skirt the issue of valid criticisms and questions by pointing that it’s not ‘global warming’
but ‘climate change’ we’re dealing with – making the entire issue a cup and ball game of terminology and phrasing. And honestly, it is
difficult to have groups that investigate any potential ‘bad science’ behind global warming, I mean climate change, I mean global climate
disruption, I mean carbon pollution….
(you get the idea)
Which is the correct stance to take? Good intention, or vast conspiracy? As I said, it doesn’t matter. Both stances show deliberate manipulation of
a societal perspective of a single problem. If it is for the best intentions (to educate and enlighten) or the worst intentions (to obscure and hide)
they have actively used wording to sway opinion of a singular issue. It is also highly ineffective. If education was the key, changing the language of
the masses is a quick and effective tool to do so. Yet, when the wording refers to the same exact thing the subtleties of the problem you are trying
to educate the masses about becomes lost in the change of talking points. Instead of revealing a cause/effect dynamic the uneducated masses simply
spout the new phrasing believing the new phrasing is the same exact phenomena. So I tend to lean that this change from ‘global warming’ (even if
it were done with the best intentions) is wrong.
I’ve had friends argue with me about the specific issue of global-warming to climate-change, to carbon pollution (ad nauseam) was because critics
have hijacked the issue of global warming. That somehow the term was tarnished by these critics and therefore needed a ‘brand shift’ with the
terminology… which only proves my point.
But the dialogue between global warming and climate change was a gradual one that took near a decade to shift. This gradual shift can often times be
excused on how language always changes and morphs into one thing or another. So, I wished to look at a more recent and knee-jerk reaction you can see
unfold in record time is in regards to the word “Obamacare”.
I am not here to debate the merits or folly of Obamacare.
I am here to point out the scramble for a shift of wording from Obamacare to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We can see this morph occur in less than
TWO MONTHS. Now please note that Obamacare and the ACA refer to the exact same thing. There are no subtle differences and educational points to be
made as one could argue with global-warming and climate-change. Obamacare was a term coined by opponents to personify the legislation. In doing so
they were able to link the legislation to the individual in the hopes that any failures would be attributed directly to the person who shares the name
of the law (in this case Obama). The other side may have banked on the opposite public reaction which was any success that this legislation had would
also be attributed to the man who shares this law’s nickname. No one (prior to the bad press that accompanied the rollout of the website) thought
that Obamacare was a horrible, bad, and evil moniker
edit on 2 24 14 by KaDeCo because: Grammarly