Better framing for environmental issues

[yesthattom]

Rather than “Global warming” or “Climate Change”, I heard someone use the phrase “Climate Crisis” today. I think that’s a much better frame.

(Note: If you don’t know what a “frame” is, please read this book or study up at The Rockridge Institute.

Comments

[cos]

I like it. I'll try to remember to use it.

While we're at it, stop calling those who want to criminalize abortion "pro-life". Call yourself "pro-life". Call them "pro-forced-labor".

[wayward-va.livejournal.com]

Compulsory Pregnancy Advocates is more accurate, since most 'pro-life' individuals also support the death penalty.:)

[cos]

I don't know whether it's "more accurate" or "less accurate", but I don't think accuracy is the top priority. The dominant terms, pro-choice and pro-life, are certainly not more "accurate" than any of these. This is branding and framing, not technical analysis. By that standard, I don't think "compulsory pregnancy advocates" is very useful; I don't think it has a chance of wide adoption, and I don't think it carries as much of a punch as either the existing terms (pro-choice, pro-life) or the one I suggested (advocating for or against "forced labor").

[aguynamedwill.livejournal.com]

I've always preferred the terms "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" to "pro-life" and "pro-choice", respectively.

[cos]

I've used those a lot, too. Are you just adding a note, or are you suggesting that people not use "forced labor" and that pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights are better framing?

[aguynamedwill.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not sure how "forced labor" as framing will benefit the cause, for either side. Abortion is an emotionally charged issue, whatever one's take, and using as neutral a term as possible, imho, will lead to a more sensible dialogue.

Was just my two cents.

[cos]

Ahh. Okay, that's clear. I think it's completely wrong, but I understand what you're saying.

[aguynamedwill.livejournal.com]

You can be "pro-life" and favor abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and not be "pro-forced labor".

If I were anti-abortion rights, I'd be highly insulted to be called "pro-forced labor".

[cos]

You can be "pro-life" and favor abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and not be "pro-forced labor".

If by "pro-life" you mean favoring criminalizing abortion, then that is false. Even someone who is willing to allow certain narrow exceptions to criminalizing abortion, is still favoring forcing a lot of woman to carry pregnancies under force of law, regardless of their choice. That's "forced labor" (pun intended).

If by "pro-life" you merely mean, a strong moral feeling in favor of carrying pregnancies to term and having children, but without advocating that it be a crime to end pregnancy, then that's true. And that's the main point this term tries to make, so it's not a "bug" that that's true.

If I were anti-abortion rights, I'd be highly insulted to be called "pro-forced labor".

As well you should be - it's an insulting term for an insult-worthy point of view, IMO. You favor abortion rights. Are you not insulted to be considered "anti-life"? (They also often say more insulting things, like "baby murderer") "Pro-life" was deliberately intended to insult you. It's emotionally charged. And it's been extroardinarily successful for advancing their movement. Countering it with neutral terms doesn't do any good, and "pro-choice" is far too weak. It doesn't force people to confront the issue we want them to confront, so they still think in the frame the other side chose.

We're losing, on several different fronts. One of those is the framing front. "Pro-life" is an in-your-face, emotionally charged term meant to get people to focus on how they feel about pregnancy and abortion. There are an awful lot of people who strongly favor "life" in that frame, even though they wouldn't have necessarily taken that feeling to mean they should advocate for criminalizing abortion. These people should be on our side, and they would be, if they saw the distinction in our frame: whether or not the government should, under pain of criminal law, force women to use their bodies to carry pregnancies they don't want. But we're not doing a good job making people think about it that way. The pro-life brand is strong and dominant, and it makes many of these people who should be our allies identify as "pro-life" because they favor life, they favor having children, they don't like abortion.

It would help us a lot to have terms that are charged, and powerful, and jar people out of the "pro-life?" frame and into thinking of the horror of forcing women to use their bodies to carry pregnancies they don't want, under pain of criminal law. Regardless of how one feels about abortion, having children, or "life", that is the core issue our side is fighting over. We need ways to make people who don't see that, see it and think about it. Neutral terms will do us no good. Even "pro-choice", which is not neutral, is not strong enough to do us much good.

This isn't an academic, technical debate between disinterested scientists. This is a literal fight for life against very committed opponents, with tremendous stakes. They're not afraid to insult and vilify us, and while that in and of itself doesn't mean we need to insult or vilify them, the fact is, they have the most powerful brand in this fight, and it's gaining them a lot of converts who should be on our side. We need to challenge it.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

If I were anti-abortion rights, I'd be highly insulted to be called "pro-forced labor".

THAT'S THE POINT!

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Lakey says to never use the term "abortion" and instead replace it with "termination". That takes the heat out of the conversation.

I do like the phrase "forced labor" because it puts the other side on the defense. Even if they argue against it, the more they say the phrase "forced labor" the more it sinks in to the audience that it's a bad thing.

[cpj.livejournal.com]

Doesn't Crisis sound kind of alarmist??