George Lakoff: Moral Politics

I think you'll enjoy this lecture by linguistics professor George Lakoff: ▶ this video Among other things he speaks of the think-tank-driven concerted effort to influence political support by using language invoking specific metaphors to frame important issues. Like "Tax Relief" for dramatically reducing taxes for the rich etc. Changed how I process political speech and pretty much any media-supported narrative.

in “Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook” · View on HN

I highly recommend the Moral Politics talk by Linguistics professor George Lakoff: ▶ this video In short, the two sides of the debate speak different language representing different world views rooted in upbringing and triggered / exploited by metaphors. This talk changed my view on political speech and narrative dramatically.

in “The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb” · View on HN

The right[2] looks at intent because that's what matters in a hierarchical view of society. This division is from a fundamental difference in what societies are. This can be observed din how they use language; from one of the most enlightening articles[1] I've ever read: > One of the biggest problems of the entire Culture Wars is that people like us [the left[2]] use language impart information. We usually are not aware that a nice big chunk of population does not use language in that way at all. Their use of language is that of Phatic Language [...] In a hierarchical society [the right[2]], language is [often] not used for exchange of information [...] It is used to establish social hierarchy. For a good explanation of how this works, George Lakoff's lecture[3] "Moral Politics". [1] [link] [2] The "left"/"right" labels are being use in a general psychological sense, which doesn't always match the political groups with the same names. [3] ▶ this video

in “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms” · View on HN

This would be a great way to prevent polititians from framing the bills. For more on framing, see George Lakoff’s lecture on moral politics — reveals the way political language uses metaphors and How framing a debate ensures its outcome. Repeating the frame reinforces the intended meaning. Merely Using the name of the bill defines its outcome. “Tax Relief” - no one wants to fight a “relief” effort. Tax cuts for the rich would be the correct name. “Clear sky initiative” is the name of a clear cutting bill. ▶ this video

in “Congress wants to extend the copyright on some sound recordings to 144 years” · View on HN

You've probably seen this, but for those who haven't George Lakoff give's this a fairly good treatment in this[1] on 'Moral Politics'. By 'this' I mean the idea that the Left and the Right have different experiences of what is moral. My issue with politics is that I think we need to extricate it from morality. Like we have separation of Church and State a la Secular Society, we need amoral politics. 1. ▶ this video

in “It’s official: Venezuela is a dictatorship” · View on HN

On that note, I found this talk on Moral Politics by George Lakoff[1] elsewhere on HN. The basic idea is that people who have different political opinions to you aren't necessarily stupid or greedy or bad actors, they just have different morals and therefore a different set of rationales. 1. ▶ this video

in “How to Give Rural America Broadband? Look to the Early 1900s” · View on HN

He refuses to use the commonly established language which distorts reality. It is a radical choice (given how well established the manipulative language is). I can see how some may find this irritating. You may want to take a look at this lecture to see why language is so important and influential. ▶ this video

in “Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook” · View on HN

TL;DR - skip straight to [1] > I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone It is possible, but first you have to open a real dialog. That isn't going to happen without first learning to speak their language , because this is "More than just Resistance to Science"[1]. > Only new facts will do the trick Arguments based on facts are useful when trying to persuade people fluent in the language of science and logic. Unfortunately I suspect only a minority of the population has sufficient understanding of data-focused language. Most people instead see language as phatic expression [2][3] first. A good example of this from the other side of the language divide that still retains mutual intelligibility are Trump's repeated - and often self-contradictory - promises that he would "build the wall". People that primarily use language to convey facts often claims his rhetoric sounds ignorant, useless, or xenophobic. Trump's intended audience, on the other hand, hears the language of emotion that promises protection. Trump isn't trying to convey facts , so self-contradiction and other ignorant claims are not important. To reach people on the other side of this divide, it is probably necessary to first learn their language of social hierarchy, emotion, etc. Skipping that step and continuing to throw facts at them is about as useful as sending them a textbook written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. [1] [link] [2] [link] [3] While I'm discussing this as a language problem, some people ma

in “Antarctica Is Melting, and Giant Ice Cracks Are Just the Start” · View on HN

I tend to lean toward agreeing with you, by the way, but the other side of this argument is: We already know that giving money and food to poor people doesn't resolve poverty, when the aid / social welfare stops the poverty returns because aid / welfare prevents people from innovating your way out of poverty. Of course, which side of the argument a person lands on probably depends on their moral politics, see[1] - basically I'm referring to the progressive vs. conservative divide. Fortunately for me I live in Australia where we have social welfare to the tune of $527.60 a fortnight for a single adult[2], and $952.80 for a couple. But of course we still have bunches of poverty, but I've never been to the US so I can't really say how it compares. Also, I think the example of the Nordic countries is a poor comparison. The 'Nordic Countries* as a whole have a population of 26.6 million, comparable to Australia. Sweden has a population of about 10 million, the others are close to half that or much less. In a country that has a population the size of Melbourne (4.5 million) or Sydney (4.9 million) I would imagine it would be a lot easier to want to care for other people. I think that matters a lot. 1. ▶ this video 2. [link]

in “To Cut Down Poverty, Cut Down the Cost of Living” · View on HN