HaskellJun 27
Peter Gleick
Language is important.
I'm tired of media euphemisms.
It's not climate skeptic, it's climate denier.
It's not vaccine skeptic, it's anti-vaxxer.
And it's "lies" and "racism" and "genocide" and "war." Words have meaning.
Jun 26 at 6:30amWeb
Show threadSearingTruthJun 26

@petergleick

"Tell the truth of the suffering and the dying.

Do not hide from it or pretend it does not exist.

Confront it and end its cause."
SearingTruth

Show threadVladimirNJun 26
@petergleick
"Mal nommer les choses, c'est ajouter du malheur au monde."
Albert Camus
Indeed
Show threadTeri Yaki đŸ–ŒïžđŸŽčđŸšČđŸ’»Jun 26
@petergleick you forgot colonialism classism and capitalism Oligarchy ?
Show threadPoloniousmonkJun 26

@petergleick

It's not "pro life", it's "forced birther"

Show threadSpace HoboJun 26
@Uair @petergleick True story: the original "Pro-Life" movement only took up anti-abortion activism after fighting against war and the death penalty and for things like school meals and medical check-ups in schools.
Show threadSoozcatJun 26
@petergleick Thing is, most anti-vaxxers would not call themselves "vaccine skeptics." They don't have a problem with being called anti-vaxxers because that's what they are. Just like actual racists don't mind being called racists. They own what they are; why shouldn't we?
Show threadukoenzenJun 26
@petergleick
Sprache formt Denken!!!! JAJA
Show threadIsabel RuffellJun 26

@petergleick

And it's not "gender criticism", it's transphobia.

For some time now in UK politics, accusing someone of such things has caused more outrage than the behaviour itself.

Show threadPetrichor ᚄᚔᚅᚐᚁᚆᚃᚒᚔᚂJun 26
@petergleick And it's not a war, it's a genocide
Show threadAndreas KJun 26

@petergleick
Yes, but that's the point, your choice of words (that I agree with) is basically judgemental.

It's the old story the right likes to complain about although they usually put it into different words: reality often has this leftish bias, it's so unfair.

Show threadPasswordsarehard4Jun 26
@yacc143 @petergleick you hit it on the head. OP doesn’t want the “right” words used, they want the words that they choose to use be the norm. They are not “climate deniers” because they do not deny the existence of the climate (as an example). They may know it’s changing but feel it’s a natural cycle of change. Or just feel like it won’t be enough to matter. The issue is that to accurately categorize and label them you would have to get to know them all.
Show threadAndreas KJun 26

@passwordsarehard4
The problem is "climate denier" is short for "climate change denier" or more precise "human caused climate change denier"

Now discussing this if both sides are equally scientifically valid might have been valid in the 19th century, but nowadays the huge majority of the scientific community agrees. The situation is literally so clear that the fossil industry flunkies are "burning books" (nothing else is the deleting of scientific datasets the Trumpregime does)
@petergleick

Show threadMartin Vermeer FCDJun 28
@yacc143 @passwordsarehard4 @petergleick In the 19th century, there wasn't any significant or measurable human caused climate change, so the issue didn't arise. In fact, 'climate deniers' were created by the impacts climbing out of the noise at a time when observation techniques were excellent, which got fossil-fuel interests nervous.
Show threadMaddogecoJun 26
@petergleick it’s not climate change it’s global warming
Show threadPetra van CronenburgJun 26

@Maddogeco In 2019, the Guardian changed their writing rules to call it climate crisis / climate emergency / global heating: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment

@petergleick

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment

From now, house style guide recommends terms such as ‘climate crisis’ and ‘global heating’

The Guardian
Show threadMaddogecoJun 26
@NatureMC @petergleick yes I like their reasoning.
Show threadSellaTheChemistJun 26
@petergleick This is exactly the complaint that I put in to the BBC, whose journalists mostly do a brilliant job but who are constrained by “impartiality” guidelines that force these linguistic contortions.
Show threadplookingtonJun 26
@petergleick
Can we add christian extremist?
Show threadPastorDanJun 26
@petergleick I'm sick of social media posters using words and phrases like grape instead of rape, unalive instead of dead, unalived someone instead of murdered or killed someone. Use real words people.
Show threadPasswordsarehard4Jun 26
@pastordan @petergleick social media removes those posts. They are trying to circumvent the automatic removals while still discussing the topic.
Show threadMike 🇬🇧 đŸ‡ȘđŸ‡șJun 26
@petergleick Can we add 'died' instead of 'passed'?
Show threadMikeJun 26

@petergleick

Couldn't agree more. For years I have been saying I don't like people. But although that remains true, it just recently occurred to me that I do like persons..

Show threadTim LavoieJun 26
@petergleick Adding "Methane" instead of "natural gas", since that term's still flying around and heavily promoted.
Show threadandrei!Jun 27

@petergleick This lecture by linguist George Lakoff shows how language and framing are used to manipulate at scale. It is the equivalent of the xray glasses from They Live - once you see it, it’s everywhere.

https://youtu.be/5f9R9MtkpqM

George Lakoff: Moral Politics

YouTube
Show threadOrion (he/him)Jun 27
@petergleick Word do have meaning, for sure. That's why they avoid all the ones you've named. Because they're cowards.