| ▲ | rkomorn 5 days ago |
| I used to think so, but now I think they're just intended to make it easy to refer to the bill in a context people can recall quickly. |
|
| ▲ | int_19h 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| They're intended to be propaganda soundbites. The point is that people use them to refer to the bill because it's much easier than using the full title or describing what the bill actually does, and in doing so, they inadvertently propagate a specific perspective on the nature of the bill. "PATRIOT" act etc are good examples. |
| |
| ▲ | rkomorn 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Agreed but at the same time, "everything" out of congress is propaganda sound bites, so I'm not going to pick on backronyms in particular. Having a short monicker for a bill remains useful. It's not like non-backronym bills in congress have names that accurately reflect what they seek to achieve. | | |
| ▲ | int_19h 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Other countries do just fine with numbered bills. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 4 days ago | parent [-] | | In media? The non-US examples I know (my home country and where I live now) either refer to laws/proposals based on sponsor name or topic, or (when passed), the date it was passed. Cursory googling about the UK suggests it's mostly either naked acts or "law of XYZ", but numbers. The act names and backronyms are for public consumption. |
|
| |
| ▲ | quesera 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > they inadvertently propagate a specific perspective I think it's often, maybe always, quite advertent. :) |
|
|
| ▲ | RankingMember 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The ones that really stick in my craw are the 1984-esque ones like the PATRIOT act. |
| |
| ▲ | rkomorn 5 days ago | parent [-] | | CAN-SPAM was arguably well named but it unfortunately did not can spam. To me it always read like "oh so we CAN spam people". | | |
|
