Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod
Ok, so if I tell people that climate change is a real threat to society, and it will cause huge amounts of human suffering, damage to property, and yes, lost lives, if swift action isn't taken now... is that fear mongering, or is that just sharing truthful information about the inconvenient reality of the world we're currently living in?
The problem I have with the term "fear mongering" when it's used against those who communicate warnings of real dangers, is that it implies an accusation of emotional manipulation to provoke irrational responses.
Because that's what actual fear mongering is - fabricating or exaggerating dangers to try and provoke responses that are not rational. (Tuco in this thread for example.)
So in terms of the Harris-Walz campaign, are they using fear mongering in any of their messaging, or are they just communicating real dangers? Looking at Trump's threat to democracy, for example, how do you tell people that he wants to dismantle American democracy, without causing negative psychological impacts?
|
Because that is conjecture. The affects of climate change are not known. We do know that it will have a dramatic effect on our lives, but we cannot quantify it yet. We also do not know if swift action will even reverse the changes that are occuring. We can surmise this, but it is not a guarantee.
Climate change is real. Climate change is also a fear mongering tactic. State the facts on it and not the percieved conclusions. Come up with solutions that the average person can continue to afford to do and make in their lives and quit terrifying people about it. Is it a scary situation, probably, but don't keep telling me how dire it is without telling me what I, as a normal person, can do to change it.
Problems without solutions IS fear mongering.