Off-topic thought:
It feels a bit bizarre to call for a stop to “Kids Online Safety Act”, almost like we don’t care about kid’s safety. Whoever is designing the names for these acts is either very clever or it is an excellent coincidence.
It feels a bit bizarre to call for a stop to “Kids Online Safety Act”, almost like we don’t care about kid’s safety. Whoever is designing the names for these acts is either very clever or it is an excellent coincidence.
I feel the Bush era made people cynical and suspicious of such bills in particular. What with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act. Also the “Coalition of the willing” and “You Are Either With Us, Or With the Terrorists”. After seeing such sophistry result in over a million people dying, I am fairly hostile towards politicians that engage in such demagoguery. But hey, I guess it does work, especially as people forget the last demagogue.
Source : I worked on our Standard Hybrid Relationship Engagement frameworK.
"What do you want? You had a problem with inflation, so we created the Inflation Act because it worked so well, WE wanted more of it, despite the unfortunate collateral damage of YOU. We gotta look at the bigger picture/upper classes".
Between the Bigger Picture^TM and the Overton Window^TM, there's just never any space for the regular and affected
Edit: btw, nice on the S.H.R.E.-K, don't think I didn't see that aha ;) As always, I'm eventually get around to it aha
That's the point of the name. I do like, though, that the repressive morality policing bill was also named in a way that it shares the acronym used for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, known for its repressive morality police, but I think that, unlike the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act, the acronym was unplanned.
Perhaps there's space for an organisation that "renames" these accurately, maintains a mapping, and then opponents should just start using the "corrected" names instead?
Basically whoever first frames the issue, wins. U.S. politicians are masterful at that.
The bill which installed domestic surveillance and paved the road to a (more) police state wasn't called "The Police State Act". It was called "The Patriot" act. Who'd vote against "Patriot"ism?
The Bush bill which cut taxes for the richest people in the country at the expense of everybody else wasn't called "The Billionaire Enrichment Act". It was called "The Tax Relief" bill. Who'd vote against "relief"?
It is incredibly important to refuse to repeat malicious framing without at least reframing.
Noone would want to be remembered voting against "Kids safety". This is a very powerful frame and repeating it activates the brain in powerful ways.
A better way to refer to the bill would be "The Spying on Young People Act maliciously named as Kids online safety act"
As George Lakoff says, never use their title, because it embeds the frame in the readers' brains and that's the battle lost right there.
Always reframe.
These lawmakers don't actually care about children. One look at family law will tell you that.