I have mixed feelings about approaches like this, but I have been looking for resources just in case.
On one hand, avoiding a polarizing term that would turn away people from an argument they would otherwise be willing to hear out is usually the best move to achieve the greater good. And adapting to your audience is essential for marketing or promoting any idea.
On the other, language policing is one of the biggest things I've found myself advocating against, across all parts of the political spectrum. Of course, these resources here aren't presented with any intention of "canceling," and there are reasonable boundaries one can lay out in terms of what language is and isn't appropriate for certain contexts. However, I don't know how helpful it is to analyze common phrases for their potentially uncomfortable connotations versus encouraging us to focus on the core of each other's stances rather than specific phrasing within them.
Yet, it is still a reality that even a single, mundane word is enough to spark anger in some, and those looking to negotiate will likely have to undertake a necessary evil of self-censorship in order to reach more people and help us get to the point where we don't have to stress so much about these issues anymore.
Just sharing my thoughts, but I will reiterate I'm not upset by any of these suggestions, and I'll probably look over your list while drafting my next few articles.
To me, it's just about being persuasive; and how persuasive people want to be is of course up to them (and of course, people will disagree on how persuasive one approach or another is, also) (and of course for different audiences different things work). To me, it's nothing to do with cancelling or judging others (as for a lot of those things in there I understand why people with good intent use all sorts of phrases) it's basically like: if being persuasive or bridging divides interests you, look into it. It's all just about how interested someone is in this (and I think more activists should want to think about this for their own sake).
But yes, also, to your point: many people overreact in overly pessimistic ways about others' language. That is also a problem. But it's also one that is common in a polarized environment; many people will filter for worst-case interpretations. I do agree it's important to get people to examine that (that is the nature of my work and this work in general). But I'd say it's also just a fact that many people will be triggered, and if yo'ure creating content for a wide audience, you have to think about that fact, as a creator, and if you want to be persuasive. E.g., if I'm trying to get people into this cause, that can be very hard, as even the idea of reducing toxic polarization/divides is contentious and angering for many; so it's important, if I care about the cause, to think about those perceptions and my approach carefully. Yes, I think many people can and do misinterpret what I say in the worst possible ways, but it's also on me to think through perceptions and foresee objections and such.
If that makes sense. I don't think we are disagreeing; it's just a matter of how much each of us wants to think about these things and in what context.
Thank you for your spreadsheet. A very helpful reference. Great post.
Thanks for sharing!
I have mixed feelings about approaches like this, but I have been looking for resources just in case.
On one hand, avoiding a polarizing term that would turn away people from an argument they would otherwise be willing to hear out is usually the best move to achieve the greater good. And adapting to your audience is essential for marketing or promoting any idea.
On the other, language policing is one of the biggest things I've found myself advocating against, across all parts of the political spectrum. Of course, these resources here aren't presented with any intention of "canceling," and there are reasonable boundaries one can lay out in terms of what language is and isn't appropriate for certain contexts. However, I don't know how helpful it is to analyze common phrases for their potentially uncomfortable connotations versus encouraging us to focus on the core of each other's stances rather than specific phrasing within them.
Yet, it is still a reality that even a single, mundane word is enough to spark anger in some, and those looking to negotiate will likely have to undertake a necessary evil of self-censorship in order to reach more people and help us get to the point where we don't have to stress so much about these issues anymore.
Just sharing my thoughts, but I will reiterate I'm not upset by any of these suggestions, and I'll probably look over your list while drafting my next few articles.
To me, it's just about being persuasive; and how persuasive people want to be is of course up to them (and of course, people will disagree on how persuasive one approach or another is, also) (and of course for different audiences different things work). To me, it's nothing to do with cancelling or judging others (as for a lot of those things in there I understand why people with good intent use all sorts of phrases) it's basically like: if being persuasive or bridging divides interests you, look into it. It's all just about how interested someone is in this (and I think more activists should want to think about this for their own sake).
But yes, also, to your point: many people overreact in overly pessimistic ways about others' language. That is also a problem. But it's also one that is common in a polarized environment; many people will filter for worst-case interpretations. I do agree it's important to get people to examine that (that is the nature of my work and this work in general). But I'd say it's also just a fact that many people will be triggered, and if yo'ure creating content for a wide audience, you have to think about that fact, as a creator, and if you want to be persuasive. E.g., if I'm trying to get people into this cause, that can be very hard, as even the idea of reducing toxic polarization/divides is contentious and angering for many; so it's important, if I care about the cause, to think about those perceptions and my approach carefully. Yes, I think many people can and do misinterpret what I say in the worst possible ways, but it's also on me to think through perceptions and foresee objections and such.
If that makes sense. I don't think we are disagreeing; it's just a matter of how much each of us wants to think about these things and in what context.
Yes, that makes sense. I think you're right. Thanks for the discussion!
GREAT piece, Zach!
I, for one, am grateful that you put the Resources together and accessible for those who have been unaware of their availability. 😊
I’m always grateful for any helpful suggestions on how to be MORE AWARE of possible triggers when communicating with my fellow human beings. 🙏🏻💕