They are similar in that they are words. It's just that you've agreed to be afraid of this one. You don't have a principle of "not being afraid of words"; you have a piece of decontextualized rhetoric that you're using to evade the simple point that when we talk to voters, we ought to sound normal.
None of the words or phrases in the screenshot are controversial or abnormal to anyone who is moderately educated. The good news is, it’s very easy for people to learn about what these things mean. It’s time we stop treating conservatives like fragile little babies.
Why 'microaggression' (dumb, fake, long) when 'rude' (smart, real, short) is just sitting there? Why make up new "I am smarter and more sensitive than you pissants" words when old normal words work? I don't understand why it's important to make ourselves sound like an alien tribe of invading snobs.
Because microaggression is more specific than rude. Come on, you know this. Stop acting stupid.
I don't know it, but if I did, so? What *electoral issue* requires that level of specificity? The best-case scenario is that the voter hears "x is a microaggression" as "x is rude and you're a lowly worm". The worst-case scenario is that they don't know about the rudeness part.
How about we let candidates do what they think is needed to get elected instead of banning words and phrases, which gets pretty fucking close to banning books, political ideologies, etc.
...banning?
Do you need help understanding that word too?
No, but apparently you do, because "try not to alienate voters needlessly" isn't a "ban".
Ya, just like books are banned so as to not alienate straight, white Christians.
Suggesting that messaging should be tailored to the audience isn't the same as "banning" the other messaging. I'm gonna roll my eyes at the snob that I vote for; I'm not gonna throw his tweets in a bonfire or have him locked up.
(Well — I do understand. There's a fragment of the overtalkative left that is happy for conservatives to hunt the homeless for sport as long as that fragment is able to congratulate itself on its intellectual and moral superiority. The worse the violence, the greater the self-congratulation.)
You are confusing how these words and their phrases are used vs their existence. We don’t need to avoid them just because some people use them to virtue signal.
All this is stupid anyways because this is NOT going to suddenly win people to the Democrats.
If you can avoid turning off 2% of the voters over some irrelevant nonsense, so that they hear a couple of your substantive points that time, why would you refuse to do that? It's not about "suddenly" or "people". It's about gradually and some people.
You’re making shit up
If you can avoid handing FOX one soundbite of you sounding snobbish, and that soundbite makes, say, fifty voters in your district and fifty voters in the rest of the country find it easier to blank out a real issue, why would you hand it to them anyway?
Lol if you think Fox wouldn’t just find another way to smear Democrats then you clearly aren’t a serious person. A fucking Muslim, Indian socialist is likely going to be the next mayor of NYC. Just stop already.
Not to mention he’s also an anti-Zionist and he won BECAUSE of it.
He seems pretty friendly. I haven't seen him use special better-than-you words. He is maybe not the example you're looking for. Fortunately, few electoral Dems use these things very often anyway.
Do you really think that what we say and do has no effect on elections?
Strawman
They have no other known purpose.
You need to think harder