[mantas]

That’s not what I said.

I see people in various camps trying to use double speak as a weapon. And I don’t see people changing camps because of wording. And all camps are making fun of wording of the other side on any topic.

I’m not on US so here camps are slightly different and don’t exactly make two camps. With many topics crossing what you may call „reactionary“ and „progressive“ lines in strange ways. Here frequently people at the same time are in different camps on different topics with same people. And use same tactics both „with“ and „against“ same people based on topic.

[mmooss]

You said that people using that language were ridiculed, as if that should be a factor in their behavior. So should they stop because their opponents use ridicule?

> I don’t see people changing camps because of wording

I still don't see what evidence you have. I've presented evidence that experts and practioners have long invested a lot of resources in using language in this way. Just look at Fox News - it's almost their entire reason and means.

[mantas]

I was saying that the language didn’t change the outlooks of the other side. The only impact was the other side making fun of them.

People have invested time in all sorts of useless ideas. And social sciences have a pretty bad track record in recent decades.

I’m not very familiar with Fox News. But isn’t it the example of what I’m saying? It does nothing to convert the other side and pretty much a circlejerk of believers?

How may Fox News watchers changed their minds because NYT started calling illegal migrants „undocumented“? My bet at best it’s feel-good virtue signaling for their crowd that was already deep in that camp.

[mmooss]

I know what you're saying. I don't see evidence of it - that you perceive it, especially because you can't read people's minds, is not strong evidence.