Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Sticks and stones...
Brendan mentions his efforts to "counteract the rhetorical trends of our current political discourse." It raises the question, though, of whether replacing terms with those more favorable to you is a legitimate rhetorical effort. The most interesting example is that of "Pro-Choice" instead of "Pro-Abortion."
While the term "Anti-Abortion" is a fairly good term in describing the opinion of the anti-abortion crowd (they oppose abortion), "Pro-Abortion" certainly has its shortcomings. Supporters are not necessarily in favor of abortion, but rather are in favor of a woman's ability to get one. Hence the alternative of "Pro-Choice." But then, "Pro-Choice" is just as tilted, if not moreso, because it's really "Pro Choice in this one issue and anti choice in any issue which contradicts this one and indifferent towards any other issue."
To say that you're somehow "fighting trends" by trying to insert trends that favor you doesn't hold a great deal of truth value. The argument that such efforts are tactically sound is legitimate, but given such an opinion, there's no room left to complain about the other side screwing around with words to tilt perception. And any good political commentator knows that you always need to leave room to complain.
. . .
|
. . .
|
