Do you believe that there are people who care about helping the homeless, but will vote against policies or politicians who mean to help homeless people, if they use the term "unhoused"?
Do you believe that there are people who care about helping the homeless, but will vote against policies or politicians who mean to help homeless people, if they use the term "unhoused"?
What I believe is that people are telling pollsters they find the people saying these terms to be out of touch and hard to connect with. Since winning elections is about addition rather than subtraction, what's the harm in using more relatable terms?
Guess what? βHomelessβ used to be a PC term that was less degrading than bum, or hobo, or vagrant. Every time a less offensive term gains acceptance, the right turn it into an insult. So spare me. You really think Tom wouldnβt be complaining about using βhomelessβ if it was still favored?
People on the left like me have always had to be good sports and support the consensus candidate. I used to get mad at the small minority of leftists who didn't vote. "If we don't shut up about our issues, the GOP wins!" But now I'm reaching my own breaking point. I'm tired of being told to shut up.
Who's telling you to shut up?
This entire debate has made me less interested in winning elections and more disenchanted with America and Americans. If certain uncommonly used terms can drive you away from those values, and turn toward Trump, so be it.
So, you're guilty of the very thing you were challenging me about. You'd rather continue to use a term like "unhoused" and lose an election over it than just change your words. You value your word choices over getting results.
No, I don't care about the words. They're just words. That's the point. I care that there are millions of Americans who embrace Trump (supposedly) because of certain words that are almost never spoken, except in rightwing propaganda. As if it's a legit concern, worth throwing our country away over.
Actually youβre missing the point. People donβt like being talked down to. These terms alienate people who might otherwise find common cause with Dems. I think quite a bit of MAGA is racist and generally deplorable. This isnβt about trying to sway them. Itβs about the 1 or 2% who arenβt.
But the thing is, that language is not commonly used. How can Dems stop doing something that is not happening with any kind of frequency? It's a small segment of the base, and focusing criticism on them magnifies the thing you object to and make it seem much bigger than it is.
It's not about the base, it's about the candidates. Candidates and politicians should avoid these words and phrases.
Those terms aren't commonly used by politicians or candidates, unless they're 1) GOP and trying to paint the Dem as out of touch, or B) a local progressive politician serving a prog community. If it was really such a widespread issue nationally, there'd be plenty of clips and quotes to refer to.
It's scenario 2 that's the challenge. What plays in NY doesn't play as well away from the coasts.
And then come people like you and Tom, who are only legitimizing this paper thin line of attack and giving it oxygen.
Maybe not worry what the pollsters are telling you what to think, and change the narrative to help democracy instead of falling for the culture war trash, like Nichols obligingly does.
Nah, it just confirmed what I already think about these terms.
Self-confirmation is the safest algorithm youβll find. Whatβs cool, is you donβt have to find it: itβs fed to you by all media. Welcome to being proven right by βself-confirmation.β
People don't live in think tanks. We have lives outside social media. And when we talk to friends and family about politics and some of these things come up, the eye rolls do give us information. Sorry that it conflicts with how you want the world to work.