The names that people use to refer to something have a definite effect -- probably mostly unconsciously -- on how we view that thing. So if you are the inventor of some random evil idea, what better strategy than to give it an innocuous-sounding name that won't scare people off?! (Reminds me of The Screwtape Letters.)
I think politicians do this all the time when they come up with names for bills. The "digital millennium copyright protection act". If all one has to go by is a name (as is often the case, unfortunately), then this might sound like a safe enough -- even desirable -- bill. But its name could easily belie some tedious agenda that its drafters would rather you not know the details of. Picking friendly-sounding names helps to get bills passed without too much uproar from the populace.
Get example quotes from Source: Crosstalk: 2007-02-12: "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" about the innocuous-sounding days/clubs that the homosexual agenda people use to push their agenda.
What kind of name is that?? It doesn't say anything about what it actually is about!
- "emergent", "emergent church movement" -- actually "an emergent rebellion against the Bible", "a new liberal cult"
- "deconstruction", "transformation" = rebellion, rejection of absolute truth, etc.
Official censorship—now renamed speech codes and antiharassment codes—pervades the campuses.
(Okay, maybe not a "devious agenda", but definitely to promote an agenda)
freethinkers -- makes it sound like anyone who doesn't wear that name (and they would like to be the only ones who do) does not "think freely"... whatever.
free inquiry -- same deal.
Legislatively require someone to present an opposing viewpoint to the viewpoint they hold.
Makes it compulsive/mandatory to share viewpoints you strongly oppose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair
Talked about how people are busy and sometimes all they have to know what a bill is about is its name or something that was mentioned about it on the (largely liberal-controlled) media. And sometimes people are led to vote one way when they actually would have voted another way if they'd actually known what the bill was actually about. There is legislation to prohibit misleading labeling and to uphold truth in advertising. There should be similar requirements for legislators: name bills in plain, clear, honest language so that voters know what [effect] the bill actually has...