It is clear that certain groups of individuals use language that is neither clear nor particularly informative when conversing with non-constituent individuals. The interest of the group is furthered by this ambiguity.
Newman states in the textbook that euphemisms are subtle words used to soften the blow of otherwise harsh or embarrassing words. Newman continues to explain how euphemisms are often used to mask the real meaning, which in turn modifies people’s beliefs, reactions or understanding. As an example, politician’s cloak, deceive and structure their language to mold individual’s reality to control the narrative. The textbook describes how euphemisms such as collateral damage are used by governments and military in an attempt to marginalize the force being applied to enemies and other individual’s that were not part of the conflict. Since war creates a natural civic mobilization of support the military must use soft language such as euphemisms to ensure that the public continues to support the war effort in light of war’s stark realities. (Newman 2016:54-55) …show more content…
Astore continues by noting that the collective has grown desensitized by the use of euphemisms and this desensitization to the use of euphemisms can have negative effects. The article also explains how exaggerated labels are often used to soft-pedal governments’ war rhetoric, bolster national confidence, and to curtail the public’s uneasiness about war. When you look at Newman and contrast it with Astore’s article they both describe how euphemisms are used by government and the military to mold how people respond to the harsh aspects of war. The textbook and article expound how language can be a puissant capable of suppressing emotions or deceiving the public to spin a more positive perspective. (Astore
Newman states in the textbook that euphemisms are subtle words used to soften the blow of otherwise harsh or embarrassing words. Newman continues to explain how euphemisms are often used to mask the real meaning, which in turn modifies people’s beliefs, reactions or understanding. As an example, politician’s cloak, deceive and structure their language to mold individual’s reality to control the narrative. The textbook describes how euphemisms such as collateral damage are used by governments and military in an attempt to marginalize the force being applied to enemies and other individual’s that were not part of the conflict. Since war creates a natural civic mobilization of support the military must use soft language such as euphemisms to ensure that the public continues to support the war effort in light of war’s stark realities. (Newman 2016:54-55) …show more content…
Astore continues by noting that the collective has grown desensitized by the use of euphemisms and this desensitization to the use of euphemisms can have negative effects. The article also explains how exaggerated labels are often used to soft-pedal governments’ war rhetoric, bolster national confidence, and to curtail the public’s uneasiness about war. When you look at Newman and contrast it with Astore’s article they both describe how euphemisms are used by government and the military to mold how people respond to the harsh aspects of war. The textbook and article expound how language can be a puissant capable of suppressing emotions or deceiving the public to spin a more positive perspective. (Astore