Was It Something I said? - Some Democrats realize their out-of-touch language drives people away because it is, in fact, out-of-touch

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account


For a party that spends billions of dollars trying to find the perfect language to connect to voters, Democrats and their allies use an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying. The intent of this language is to include, broaden, empathize, accept, and embrace. The effect of this language is to sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. To please the few, we have alienated the many—especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant.

In reality, most Democrats do not run or govern on wildly out-of-touch social positions. But voters would be excused to believe we do because of the words that come out of our mouths—words which sound like we are hiding behind unfamiliar phrases to mask extreme intent.

Why the tortured language? After all, many Democrats are aware that the words and phrases we use can be profoundly alienating. But they use it because plain, authentic language that voters understand often rebounds badly among many activists and advocacy organizations. These activists and advocates may take on noble causes, but in doing so they often demand compliance with their preferred messages; that is how “birthing person” became a stand-in for mother or mom. And if we don’t think more carefully about our language, many in America will be banking on help from Donald Trump and Republicans, because Democratic levers of power will be few and far between.

In this memo, we are putting a spotlight on the language we use that puts a wall between us and everyday people of all races, religions, and ethnicities. These are words that people simply do not say, yet they hear them from Democrats. Over the years we’ve conducted, read, and analyzed hours upon hours of focus groups, and we’ve yet to hear a voter volunteer any of the phrases below except as a form of derision or parody of Democrats. We’re not talking about techno-speak, like net-zero and climate resiliency. Those words put up their own Ivy League walls between policymakers and voters. Here we are focusing on the eggshell dance of political correctness which leaves the people we aim to reach cold or fearful of admonishment.

Finally, we are not out to police language, ban phrases or create our own form of censorship. Truth be told, we have published papers that have used some of these words as well. But when policymakers are public-facing, the language we use must invite, not repel; start a conversation, not end it; provide clarity, not confusion.

Therapy-Speak​

These words say “I’m more empathetic than you, and you are callous to hurting other’s feelings.”

  • Privilege
  • Violence (as in “environmental violence”)
  • Dialoguing
  • Othering
  • Triggering
  • Microaggression/assault/invalidation
  • Progressive stack
  • Centering
  • Safe space
  • Holding space
  • Body shaming
Be aware of words proliferating in elite circles that have closed off open conversations and have made it uncomfortable for many people to engage in hard topics.

Seminar Room Language​

This language says “I’m smarter and more concerned about important issues than you. Your kitchen table concerns are small.”

  • Subverting norms
  • Systems of oppression
  • Critical theory
  • Cultural appropriation
  • Postmodernism
  • Overton Window
  • Heuristic
  • Existential threat to [climate, the planet, democracy, the economy]
When we use words people don’t understand, studies show that the part of their brain that signals distrust becomes more active, undermining our ability to reach them.

Organizer Jargon​

These words say “we are beholden to groups, not individuals. People have no agency.”

  • Radical transparency
  • Small ‘d’ democracy
  • Barriers to participation
  • Stakeholders
  • The unhoused
  • Food insecurity
  • Housing insecurity
  • Person who immigrated
Democrats can fight for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, and immigrants more effectively if they speak in everyday language and in the language of those most affected by these issues.

Gender/Orientation Correctness​

These say “your views on traditional genders and gender roles are at best quaint.”

  • Birthing person/inseminated person
  • Pregnant people
  • Chest feeding
  • Cisgender
  • Deadnaming
  • Heteronormative
  • Patriarchy
  • LGBTQIA+
Standing up to MAGA’s cruel attacks on gay and transgender people requires creating empathy and building a broad coalition, not confusing or shaming people who could otherwise be allies.

The Shifting Language of Racial Constructs​

These words signal that talking about race is even more of a minefield. You will be called out as racist if you do not use the latest and correct terminology.

  • Latinx
  • BIPOC
  • Allyship
  • Intersectionality
  • Minoritized communities
As we fight racism and discrimination, we should reflect upon whether the words we are using are part of the reason Democrats are losing support from all non-White voter groups. We must know when to take a step back and listen, instead of peppering our websites, fundraising asks, and newsletters with sociology buzzwords.

Explaining Away Crime​

This says: “The criminal is the victim. The victim is an afterthought.”

  • Justice-involved
  • Carceration
  • Incarcerated people
  • Involuntary confinement
People deserve to feel safe where they live, work, and go to school, and we can’t defend the progress we’ve made on criminal justice reform or hope to make more unless we acknowledge that reality in plain terms.

Conclusion​

Some will take issue with the inclusion of words or phrases we ask Democrats to avoid when talking to the public. And to reiterate, we have used some of these phrases in our own writings in the past.

Before you draft your angry tweet thread, think about conversations with persuadable voters in your own life—especially friends, family, and co-workers—and consider whether the use of the language above would help or hurt your case. Recognize that much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it.

We will never abandon our values or stop doing things to protect those who need help, encouragement, trust, a second chance, acceptance, a fair shake, and the opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. But as the catastrophe of Trump 2.0 has shown, the most important thing we can do for these people and causes is to build a bigger army to fight them. Communicating in authentic ways that welcome rather than drive voters away would be a good start.
 
Click to expand...
I could live with the code language, honestly, it's mostly the conflicting ideologies that get me. We support LGBTQ and palestine at the same time. By the way palestinians throw gay guys off of roofs and light them on fire. This would cause a blue screen of death if addressed.
 
JULAY said:
This language says “I’m smarter and more concerned about important issues than you. Your kitchen table concerns are small.”

  • Subverting norms
  • Systems of oppression
  • Critical theory
  • Cultural appropriation
  • Postmodernism
  • Overton Window
  • Heuristic
  • Existential threat to [climate, the planet, democracy, the economy]
When we use words people don’t understand, studies show that the part of their brain that signals distrust becomes more active, undermining our ability to reach them.
Click to expand...
You're_talking_about_yourself.maddox
 
JULAY said:

Some Democrats realize their out-of-touch language drives people away because it is, in fact, out-of-touch​

Click to expand...
No it is the people who are out of touch, we wouldn't want to touch them they're probably fascist.
1756569745636.webp 1756569829170.webp 1756569973590.webp 1756569892533.webp
 
Cloaking your shitty, unworkable plan in the language of virtue does not make your plan less shitty or unworkable. It just gives you a moral imperative to do it that way, so you good about yourself while inflicting your shitty, workable plan on innocent people, because those innocent people are actually evil and therefore deserve to suffer.
 
When you have to sit there and explain to your supporters why people don't like crime, and might be put off by you trying to explain away crime; you have a really fucked up and off-putting party. Different words won't fix it.
 
JULAY said:
When we use words people don’t understand, studies show that the part of their brain that signals distrust becomes more active, undermining our ability to reach them.
Click to expand...
Imagine being such a skinwalker you need a study to corroborate this.

Also, allyship sounds like an even worse escalation of "life partner."
 
Last edited:
Wallace said:
All of these words are to signal membership and gain status in the progressive elite.
Click to expand...

AnotherPleb said:
We understand your message.

We do not like your message.
Click to expand...
This latest attempt at telling the left maybe should calm down is funny to watch.

They all know the entire point of these words are to signal two things:
1) This is my religious affiliation
2) My religion demands total submission

It’s never been about building consensus or support or “helping” anyone which is why they can’t back down from it. It’s giving the “enemy” a win.
 
When all the DIE-words are mashed together what you wind up with is a de facto offshoot dialect of English. So the Democratic Party is effectively talking in a semi-different form of English to people who talk in a form of English that is closer to the standard form of English. Usually it takes a long time (like hundreds of years) and physical isolation for a group to evolve its language into a dialect and then to a different language entirely. The history of the Afrikaans language is an informative read. But it's only taken about 50 years for the American New Left, as well as urban blacks, to evolve two different dialectical forms of English that are rapidly becoming incomprehensible to speakers of the standard root language. On top of that, the condition of physical isolation is less severe than, say, the Afrikaners from the Netherlands. America seems to be balkanizing into mutually incomprehensible separate tribes.
 
Like Hitler with zero charisma, they're going to have to find their third job.
 
JULAY said:
In reality, most Democrats do not run or govern on wildly out-of-touch social positions. But voters would be excused to believe we do because of the words that come out of our mouths—words which sound like we are hiding behind unfamiliar phrases to mask extreme intent.
Click to expand...
Nigger, WHAT? Democrats don't believe inflation is real, they call you racist for taking issue with unlimited immigration, and take your child away from you if you don't want to give them up for tranny pedophiles. This author's entire article is "the peasants don't understand us, we want to help them!" No, stalker child, I don't want your "help." Fuck off. Holy shit, the arrogance of this quoted paragraph alone is astounding.

Democrat policies are a failure, not their messaging. They do not want to acknowledge this.
 
When we use words people don’t understand, studies show that the part of their brain that signals distrust becomes more active, undermining our ability to reach them.
Click to expand...


I don't know if the author intended this to come out sounding this way, but this paragraph gives tones of 'People can't help but be retards and mental children, so please use small words or they'll get confused and scared.'

I don't think they understand that it's less the words and more the fact that these people presume they are almost always automatically correct and that the tone they like to use is often smarmy and condescending and will not broker much or any dissention nor discussion.
 
Comandante Marcos said:
But it's only taken about 50 years for the American New Left, as well as urban blacks, to evolve two different dialectical forms of English that are rapidly becoming incomprehensible to speakers of the standard root language.
Click to expand...
Bro, I can understand black people way easier than these mealy-mouthed academic leftists. At least black dialects are consistent and, therefore, understandable. These leftist fucks change their definitions like the wind.
 
I like how these articles always take the default assumption that the content (LGBTQ, Environmentalism, social justice, BLM etc) is right, and it's the messaging that is the problem, thereby making sure that no real root cause analysis can be done because they already started with the wrong foundation.
 
JULAY said:
When we use words people don’t understand, studies show that the part of their brain that signals distrust becomes more active, undermining our ability to reach them.
Click to expand...
They literally fucking believe the problem is people are too stupid to understand what it is they mean.

No you fucking clowns we know exactly what you mean. Much like a man doesn't become a woman by putting on a dress and pumps, your stupid fucking ideas do not become attractive if you manage to shave them down to plainer language.

As a matter of fact the reason most of this phraseology erupted to begin with from these fountains of shit is due to how utterly horrific and incompatible it (whatever is being expressed) is in plain language, or the fact that it is predicated on neologisms for which there simply is no plain language equivalent for in the first place.
 
Comming to think of it:
Their inclusive language is exclutionairy as fuck, you have to be >90 iq and speak English (or French) at a quite an advanced level to even be able to understand their premesis. The idea that they could even explain what they want to normal people, without telling the whole story starting from Rosseau to Marx to Fabian to Foucault to Marcuse to Crenshaw to DiAngelo and your average working man will deem you a lunatic at worst and annoying at best. They shoud heed the example of their more ideologically consistent colleagues and offer free personality tests instead of telling the whole crazy story about Xenu and the thetans right up front.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom