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.
 
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.
This is all it is, really.

If people out in the street going about their daily lives and tending to immediate concerns aren't up to date on the latest approved language?

Then they're outing themselves as evil and we can ignore them....if they were good? If they were on our side? If they were "good allies"? They'd signal so by accepting our vanity language on top of our vanity beliefs!

They haven't.

Ergo?

MAGA scum pretending we didn't see them!
 
Leftists aren't the first group to use language as an in-group identifier. When they're not whipping each other into a frenzy over fascism (whatever they think it means this week), even when talking to chuds it's always this haughty, sanctimonious, "My pronouns are your/momma/gay. Let's come together, use our words and elevate our voices for neighbor harmony..." It's partially performative, but it really reflects how they think words control thoughts control reality. They truly think they're in Star Potter of the Hunger Games. If they say the right things, the script would change and their desires would come true, because reality has a liberal bias. Words are so enmeshed in the way they process reality that changing them for out-groups (in-groups are okay, whoever loses the eternal game of musical chairs gets what xhe deserves) is unthinkable. So what's another buzzword? What's another slogan? It's like Orks thinking the right shade of red makes the car go faster.

They're not going to drop their non-words, they're going to stay out of touch until the end of time.
 
Food insecurity
I actually do use this phrase, though, especially when talking about people who are signing up for the pantry. There's really no better phrase for it, because it's not like these people never have access to food, they just don't have access to it all the time, or access to enough of it. Usually the older people in the community who can make a lot out of a little, if they get it.
 
This is completely uninteresting when you try to apply it to one group. The effect on in-group/out-group language tells you a lot more when you look at it with other groups too. Using it as a way to bitch about democrats or republicans or I don’t give a fuck is boring and gay.

Conservative: "deep state," "cancel culture," virtue signaling"
Corporate: synergy, paradigm shift, low-hanging fruit, circle back, move the needle
Academics: intersectionality, critical theory, epistemology, heuristic
4Chan/Kiwi/Reddit: anon, lulz, kek, do not name, mfw, mrw, newfag, oldfag, normie, copypasta, lolcow, chad, stacy, red/blue/black pill, soy boy, npc

...blah blah blah

The point is, this stuff is generated as a way to act as a barrier to keep people from getting in or out. You see it for the first time, and it’s a toxic attack. You push yourself to get into it and turn it into your personality, now you’re just a cult fag. Shit doesn’t work for anything good, it just makes people fight.
 
This "Third Way" isn't necessarily wrong that Democrats and their allies talking like elitist lunatics is a problem (for the Democrats, it's an annoyance for everyone else), but it's downstream from one of their real problems: the elitist lunatics who propagate and enforce this manner of speaking. I suppose it would be a bridge too far for a "moderate center-left" group to propose excising a large portion of the leadership like a malignant tumor, and I can, to a limited degree, respect their willingness to call out literally anything at all, mainly because nobody's going to fucking listen lmao.

The effect on in-group/out-group language tells you a lot more when you look at it with other groups too.
What separates the in-group language of "progressives" from that of others is that, instead of either being shorthand for an existing concept ("anon", "deep state") or a neologism coined to fill a gap in language ("cancel culture", "oldfag", "lulz", even "paradigm shift"), its purpose is to supplant existing words with more confusing and vague terms. One of the simpler examples of this is trying to replace terms like "convict" and "felon" with the purposefully misdirecting "justice-involved person", to try and rebrand aggressors as victims.
 
What separates the in-group language of "progressives" from that of others is that, instead of either being shorthand for an existing concept ("anon", "deep state") or a neologism coined to fill a gap in language ("cancel culture", "oldfag", "lulz", even "paradigm shift"), its purpose is to supplant existing words with more confusing and vague terms. One of the simpler examples of this is trying to replace terms like "convict" and "felon" with the purposefully misdirecting "justice-involved person", to try and rebrand aggressors as victims.
The prog version of English may have evolved naturally to some extent, but I can see the point can be made that it's a crowdsourced version of Big Brother's Newspeak. The thing is, in the novel 1984 you can tease out what Orwell may have imagined Newspeak's grammar rules to be-a stripped down version of English that used as few terms as possible to describe reality, thus forcibly narrowing down the concepts that could be expressed by the proles as to preclude wrongthought.

Progspeak OTOH is a deliberate lengthening of English, an attempt to use elongated, flowery terms to express reality in a deliberately obfuscatory way, a way of looking at a situation but being unable to define it precisely. The point seems to be language as a vehicle of "social justice" through not offending anybody by using obfuscation as a way to keep everybody's warm fuzzies intact.

Socialists have a long history of wanting to create language as a great unifier of mankind, from Esperanto to the commandment on the Georgia Guidestones. Progspeak seems to be a divider instead, a way to sort society into elite and commoner via an invented language. It's really a throwback to the age of absolute monarchy, where royalty and nobility spoke a certain way to mark themselves as being above the commoners. Marx would be horrified imo.
 
What separates the in-group language of "progressives" from that of others is that, instead of either being shorthand for an existing concept ("anon", "deep state") or a neologism coined to fill a gap in language ("cancel culture", "oldfag", "lulz", even "paradigm shift"), its purpose is to supplant existing words with more confusing and vague terms. One of the simpler examples of this is trying to replace terms like "convict" and "felon" with the purposefully misdirecting "justice-involved person", to try and rebrand aggressors as victims.

It’s still the same. The language hides the bias. Democratic language is designed to soften everything to justify what they would say is empathetic policy. Albeit misguided. Kiwi Farms is a harassment forum, plain and simple. Apologists would say it’s all about free speech.

When you say this is somehow unique to progressives, you’re still just talking about their ideology. The actual mechanism of using language to create a barrier is still the same thing.
 
"Vagrant" is what my Grandma called em' in the 50's, by the 70's? The proper term was "bum" or perhaps "hobo" if they were at least smart enough to hop a train
My grandma threatened us that if we didn't work hard, we wouldn't didn't get jobs, and we would "grow up to be vagrants" like it was an acquired condition.
We never did look up the exact meaning, but I realize now I always thought it just meant "poor person with no job"

These types of uptight language cops go absolutely crazy when they move down South and confront southern expressions/euphemisms. They uniformly hate them all.

Example: when it rains while the sun shines (esp lots of rain in the bright sun) it means "the devil is beating his wife".
They can't rightly explain why that is bad, but it certainly is.

Lots of retail workers say "have a blessed day" instead of "have a nice day" and even Jesse Singal seemed to have a nervous breakdown over it, "WTF IS THAT???" It really seemed to shock him.
Very common in the South
 
What I absolutely cannot handle is how leftists replace all pronouns with "they" to be "gender neutral" because it often makes it impossible to follow what the fuck they are talking about. Who is "they"? A guy? A group of people? Who are you referring to?
I hate it because it legit disrupts the transmission of information and everybody who talks like that is a dumb bottom of the barrel niggerfaggot who shouldnt have been taught how to read and write.
 
In Idiocracy, everybody tells Not Sure that he talks like a fag and his shit’s all retarded. But really, he may have talked like a fag by the standards of the time, but his shit was actually quite sensible.

That’s what the authors think is happening with the democrats. The problem is that their shit is in fact retarded.
 
It’s still the same. The language hides the bias. Democratic language is designed to soften everything to justify what they would say is empathetic policy. Albeit misguided. Kiwi Farms is a harassment forum, plain and simple. Apologists would say it’s all about free speech.

When you say this is somehow unique to progressives, you’re still just talking about their ideology. The actual mechanism of using language to create a barrier is still the same thing.
Even taking that as complete fact, it ignores several factors.

One, you're forgetting that this article is specifically inter-democrat, trying to get democrats to moderate their language for their own benefit. Naturally the comments are going to focus on whether or not that's the right thing to do, and the reasons why they're doing it.

Two, you're ignoring that the intended purpose of much of this language, at least at the conscious level, is to be inviting, or at least accommodating. The fact that it's instead accomplished the opposite is worth examining.

Three, for a group that is as broad as the democrats is, they both have a lot of unique language and that language is relatively complex. These are both things worth uniquely discssing on their own. Conservatives do have their own unique statements, but they're generally simplifications of more complex concepts as quickly as they can be described - cancel culture is a culture around cancelling people, for example. Likewise for most internet jargon you've listed; it's nearly all some form of contraction or corruption of a contraction.

In most cases, language isolation comes as a side-effect of that unique group using shorter phrases and contractions to discuss common topics more easily. This even applies to the academic circle - as complicated as their words are, they are meant to act as simplifications of more complex terms. The left wing is uniquely complicating language compared to the communal parlance.

To be very generous, this is because they are technically simplifying still, it's just that they want to include a disclaimer to the original term and thus are actually contracting something much bigger than the seeming counterpart phrasing (e.g. "involuntarily confined" is shorter than "jailed, whether or not they are actually guilty"). But that in and of itself is still a complication.
 
Even taking that as complete fact, it ignores several factors.
I didn’t ignore any "factors", you added them.

"birthing person" is no more "complex" than "red pill." It’s a worldview signal to put them on the inside and everyone else on the outside. The goal is never to make the language "easy" it’s to put up a wall.

Complain about the confusion all you want... but that’s kind of the point. If your culture is meant to continuously "cancel" or overturn anything at the top of hierarchy (critical theory)... then yeah... your language is gonna' evolve pretty fucking quick to move the barrier to entry and reinforce indoctrination for anyone on the other side of that barrier.

If you control the language, it means people have to learn the lexicon and the ideology to join and to stay in. It creates a constant moving target that pushes indoctrination further in. This is how people get pulled into cults. Scientology doesn’t exactly tell you about the aliens straight away.

It’s no different than the kind of shit you see here where the language you use determines how "in" you are.

Complexity is the same, effect is the same, you haven’t mentioned anything unique.
 
The left really does think that "mastery" of a concept gives them magical control over it.
It's subtly different than that.

Their ideology is strongly influenced by Foucault. He said that the power to define/describe a thing is the power to control it. The Left exercises power and control not by "mastering" a concept, but by defining/describing it.

This is often called "framing."
 
What I absolutely cannot handle is how leftists replace all pronouns with "they" to be "gender neutral" because it often makes it impossible to follow what the fuck they are talking about. Who is "they"? A guy? A group of people? Who are you referring to?
I hate it because it legit disrupts the transmission of information and everybody who talks like that is a dumb bottom of the barrel niggerfaggot who shouldnt have been taught how to read and write.
Everyone sees men as the default anyway. Just use “he.” Even if you don’t know the sex you can tell it’s one person. This “they” shit was from feudal times, when the average Englishman was a serf, so on top of being less clear you sound less individualistic or what have you.
 
Conservative: "deep state," "cancel culture," virtue signaling"
Corporate: synergy, paradigm shift, low-hanging fruit, circle back, move the needle
Academics: intersectionality, critical theory, epistemology, heuristic
4Chan/Kiwi/Reddit: anon, lulz, kek, do not name, mfw, mrw, newfag
I think what you're getting at here is the concept of a "cant" as in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant_(language)

But here's the thing: you've got four groups listed there. One of them is, in my opinion, very not like the others.

See, even though it's true, as you say, that every group has jargon - and even though it's true that every group can be identified by their jargon (if someone brings up "the deep state" you know they're watching Fox News) - three of these groups are able to explain their jargon in simple terms.

If a conservative says "deep state" and you ask wtf that means, they will say something like, "it means unelected bureaucrats who believe they aren't accountable to elected officials like congress or the president"

And then you say, "ah, okay, gotcha."

Academia (and by extension the political left) are notably not like that at all! If you hear one of them say "intersectionality" and you ask wtf that means, you're going to get an answer that includes at least one, and probably several more concepts that need explaining.

Leftist: we must be mindful of intersectionality when doing our work.

Normal person: wtf is "intersectionality"

Leftist: Intersectionality is when there are several systems of oppression acting on a person

Normal person: what's a "system of oppression?"

Leftist: it's a power structure that perpetuates social inequalities by centering whites/males and marginalizing black and brown bodies

Do I need to go on? You can go around and around forever without ever grounding any of their ideas in the real world. Their ideology might be internally consistent ...in the same way that any cult is internally consistent. You could play this same game with a Scientologist - keep asking them what things mean, and they'll keep explaining them in term of other concepts from their cult.

But hilariously, it's often not even internally consistent. It shouldn't be possible to humiliate a group by asking them "what is a woman"
 
Do I need to go on?
You're not disagreeing with me. You're just talking about the quality of the ideology in your opinion. You're talking about something completely different.

The minutae of how quickly you personally"get it" doesn't change what "it" is. Like I said, if cancel culture is a part of it, the language is going to evolve faster, it's going to go deeper.

I'm sure you can find some insane cults with legitimately their own spoken language.

It's still a "cant" language or whatever you want to associate with it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom