A left-wing think tank in the US identifies words that the left invented – but now want to ban themselves from saying. It’s quite the list.
Show summary:
I’m sure you haven’t heard of Third Way.
According to their website,
Third Way is a national [US] think tank and advocacy organization that champions moderate policy and political ideas. Our work on the center left acts as a critical bulwark against political extremism.
And under the heading “Our Work”, they say
We design our work to resonate with the moderate American majority and empower a center-left coalition that is broad and deep enough to both win majorities and govern.
They even have a section on “Marriage Equality” highlighting how they “transformed the approach to marriage equality” – according to them. They say:
“… we launched a coordinated effort with a handful of key organizations in the LGBT movement to understand how we could start convincing a lot more swing voters to pull the lever for marriage. After several rounds of deep psychological and public opinion research, we found that “marriage” conjured for voters thoughts of responsibility, obligation, fidelity, and commitment—no one said anything about rights. That revealed a huge disconnect from the arguments marriage advocates were making, which focused on “the 1,138 federal rights” tied to marriage. When we probed further, we found that people who believed gay couples married because of love and commitment were much more likely to support marriage equality than those who thought couples were motivated by rights. We realized that to move the needle, we needed to convince Americans in the middle that gay couples want to marry for the same reason any other couple does—not to get a tax break, but to make a promise of lifetime commitment and fidelity to the person they love.”
Yes, the problem with this argument is that polygamous and group marriages also may also want lifetime commitment and fidelity. Why aren’t they campaigning for group marriage?
They also have a section on abortion – and ironically, rights. I thought they said that argument doesn’t work?
But as you can quickly see by the four latest articles, they’re strongly pro-abortion. Reproductive rights, reproductive freedom (to kill the unborn child), protecting abortion (but not the unborn child) and protecting access (to be able to kill the unborn child in the womb).
Under their section on marijuana, again the focus is clear. Clearing supporting legal weed, and using the smoke screen of medicinal marijuana as well.
And large sections of comments on LGBTQIA++ stuff including “How to talk about gender-affirming care” – code words for how can we chemicalise, castrate and confuse more young people in the name of ideology, not in the name of science, care & compassionate truth.
But it’s their most recent piece that has raised eyebrows.
Entitled Was It Something I Said?, it says
To: All Who Wish to Stop Donald Trump and MAGA
From: Third Way
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. 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.
And we can replace the word “Democrats” with Labour, Greens, Te Pati Maori, most of the legacy media, and most Government funded organisations such as universities and Ministries and Commissions.
So let’s look at the words that the left came up with – but now want to ban themselves from saying.
And remember – this is all because the radical left have got so radical that normal sane people want nothing to do with them anymore. And it’s why Trump won. It was this advert that they believe swing the election away from Kamala Harris – thank goodness
Of course we have our own version – especially Green MPs – or, used to be Green MPs
And there was this classic in the UK
Okay!!!!!! So this list from Third Way is especially for people like her – er, they.
Under the heading Therapy-Speak, it says
These words say “I’m more empathetic than you, and you are callous to hurting other’s feelings.”
Privilege
Violence (as in “environmental violence”)
Kirralie Smith knows all about that one. She called a transgender bloke a bloke – which was deemed ‘violence’.
Dialoguing
Othering
Triggering
Microaggression / assault / invalidation
Progressive stack
Centering
Safe space
Which is anywhere lefty groups gather
Holding space
Body shaming
And they conclude
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.
Heck – that’s just about their whole argument.
Then we get to 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]
They’ve basically highlighted every word that we critiqued in our Critical Theory Fact Sheet.
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.
Then under the heading Organiser Jargon (even their titles are lefty 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.
Excellent point!
Here’s the best list though – and this is where they get in the most trouble by alienating any normal thinking sane person.
Under the heading 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+
Wait, what – they can’t use the alphabet soup anymore? The
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.
Classic.
Under the heading 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
Minoritised 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.
Made-up nonsense words would be a better label.
Under the heading Explaining Away Crime
This says: “The criminal is the victim. The victim is an afterthought.”
OK – this is especially for the Greens
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.
Good thinking.
They conclude:
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.
My hope is that the leftist radicals will completely ignore this advice as complete madness – and will continue to alienate every sane normal common-sense member of society with their inane words and concepts and insults.
And they do it for two reasons – they have no decent arguments, and secondly, they think that by labelling you with negative connotations, that you’ll shut up.
Disappoint them.
Ignore the labels.
They’re now telling themselves to stop using them
But I suspect that radical groups like the Greens and Te Pati Maori and the media and academia won’t be able to adhere to these guidelines.
If they did, they’d possibly run out of any words that they could use and they’d actually have to come up with decent rational statements. Good luck on that!
