Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Democrats and their allies use an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying. Ditto Labour?

52 replies

IwantToRetire · 26/08/2025 19:55

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.

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.

Full article at https://www.thirdway.org/memo/was-it-something-i-said

Third Way

https://www.thirdway.org/memo/was-it-something-i-said

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 26/08/2025 20:37

WorriedMutha · 26/08/2025 20:08

Raced through the article but for me the writer is on the case because of the alienating language used. They don't seem to be engaging with the substantive points. It just seems to be a rant about using more normal language but still being completely onside with the message. This is just as patronising to voters. Not much of a mea culpa. Trump won voters over on things like male bodied trans athletes in women's sports because voters thought wtf. Irrespective of whether the Democrats explained that 'twaw and belong in the female category with their cisgender sisters'. You can't put lipstick on a pig. The Democrats really are lost if they think they can dumb it down for us and then we'll understand.

I think you have missed the point entirely.

If you are a campaign group wanting to reach the widest number of people you use words that the majority will respond to.

Not virtue signal to a tiny group whose private language only has meaning for them.

Its not hard to grasp.

Just as in years gone by, politicians etc., were encourage to use plain english.

Why not try reading it properly.

OP posts:
WorriedMutha · 26/08/2025 20:08

Raced through the article but for me the writer is on the case because of the alienating language used. They don't seem to be engaging with the substantive points. It just seems to be a rant about using more normal language but still being completely onside with the message. This is just as patronising to voters. Not much of a mea culpa. Trump won voters over on things like male bodied trans athletes in women's sports because voters thought wtf. Irrespective of whether the Democrats explained that 'twaw and belong in the female category with their cisgender sisters'. You can't put lipstick on a pig. The Democrats really are lost if they think they can dumb it down for us and then we'll understand.