Wednesday, April 21, 2021

In the World we find ourselves in, telling the truth is a revolutionary act

 I have mentioned that the Left are the masters of coining terms that turn reality on its head.  They do this to make their outlandish proposals seem somehow reasonable.  Take the term "Pro-choice" for example.  What reasonable person can possibly be against choice.    For many things, the more choices we have, the better, right?  But what if someone claims the choice to murder another person?  Do we say the person is pro-choice, or do we indict that person for murder?  Yet that is what so called pro-choice is in reality.  It is murdering our own children.  Not so pretty, is it?

Over at The Federalist Elle Reynolds has a piece explaining that here are 10 Politically Correct, but Factually False Words and Phrases to Stop Using Immediately.

Politicians and dishonest media propagandists today use inaccurate language to frame narratives and foster a leftist perspective. Inadvertently, even well-meaning audiences sometimes internalize this language and end up propagating the very ideas and framing they fundamentally reject. Don’t let that be you.
In every debate, it’s vital to start by defining your terms. If conservatives want to counter the radical left’s agenda, we have to begin by using words that accurately reflect what we mean — not words that actively mean the opposite. Here are just 10.

Go ahead and read the ten words and phrases. I would add that words like "could," "might," and "may" are used to bring unlikely catastrophic outcomes to discussions of things like global cooling...er...warming...er...climate change. Sure, the temperature could rise to astronomical levels. It could send us into snowball Earth. But do you really have time to worry about events that have vanishingly small chances of happening? In fact, what those who propose such theories are doing is distracting you from what the politicians are actually doing, which is what you should be paying attention to.

The other thing I wanted to discuss here is the use of the "narrative." A narrative is a devise, or tool used to advance a story line. A narrative can be true or false, but in constructing a narrative, certain facts must be left out, and other facts highlighted. But here is the problem with using a narrative as a framework in journalism. If they are constantly trying to fit the facts to the narrative, as seems the case, the existence of relevant facts that fall outside of the narrative becomes very important.  These "left out" facts could change the narrative.  And this appears to be the case today. Journalist should construct the narrative from the facts...all the facts...and not try to fit the facts to serve a narrative. The real world is a messy place, and we are better served by being presented with the facts, and letting us construct our own narratives.

In today's world, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No comments:

Post a Comment