Do we Liberals use too many big words?

[benburch]

I'm serious here...

Although I am never happier, especially when writing, to find the perfect word for a situation, I wonder if in doing so I don't immediately cause the vast majority of Republican voters to stop reading?

It should be pretty obvious that the lower-middle-class GOP voters, the backbone of the power wielded by the GOP, are not the most literate of people.

Are there any studies of this effect? To what degree do we have to dumb down our vocabularies (NOT THE MESSAGE) to actually communicate with the people we need to reach?

[TWiley]

1. Well, they did vote for a fella

with a fifth grade vocabulary. Maybe it would be a problem

[NoStinkinBadges]

2. You mean so Bush will understand?

[salvorhardin]

3. What is it they say?

That the NY Times is written at an eighth grade reading level and USA Today is written at a sixth grade reading level?

I don't know how you can express the kinds of complex ideas actually required to understand modern issues by writing at those levels. This is especially true when one thinks of anything involving science or mathematics, which is just about everything today -- from the effect of human activity and industry on the environment to the future of social security to the benefits of investing 17 years of time and $3 billion in landing a probe on Titan that has an operational lifetime of only a few hours.

This was one of the central tenets of the last episode of James Burke's 1977 series Connections.

[Stop_the_War]

8. I didn't know that

That the NY Times is written at an eighth grade reading level and USA Today is written at a sixth grade reading level?

::blinks:: lol I think they purposefully write that way to let the Republicans be able to read it. haha

[salvorhardin]

14. I was trying to find some evidence to back up that statement

but I'm having a hard time. However, here's an interesting piece actually from the NY Times.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/about/news010.html

Reproduced with permission from The New York Times
Why the Mind Shrivels for the Body Politic
Does the Dialogue of the Presidential Debates Seem More Juvenile than Eloquent?

By David D. Kirkpatrick

October 16, 2000 — American political discourse has grown more simplistic for decades, at least according to the Flesch-Kincaid reading-level formula, a gauge widely used by publishers and educators for evaluating the difficulty of a text, according to the length of its words and the complexity of its sentences.

It turns out that Vice President Al Gore's statements in the first debate in Boston a couple of weeks ago read at a level roughly appropriate to an eighth-grader. Gov. George W. Bush spoke at a level almost a grade below. Each candidate's speech fell half a grade level in the second debate last week.

Robert Beard, linguistics professor emeritus at Bucknell and chief linguistics officer of the language information Internet company yourDictionary.com, evaluated the transcripts of the debates using Flesch- Kincaid software now installed in many word-processing programs.

He said that in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Stephen A. Douglas's speeches tested at nearly a 12th- grade reading level, and Abraham Lincoln's just above 11th grade. In the first televised presidential debate, in 1960, John F. Kennedy spoke at nearly a 10th-grade level and Richard M. Nixon just above 10th grade. But during the 1996 presidential election debates, Bill Clinton spoke at a level suitable for eighth- graders, and Bob Dole at a level right for the sixth grade. The hands-down winner for complex talk in the current campaign is Ralph Nader, of the Green Party, who hit the 12th-grade reading level in a recent television appearance.

more...

[Clark2008]

71. I can be your evidence

I was a reporter for 12 years. I was taught this in J-School.

It's true.

(See my other post on this subject)

[salvorhardin]

102. Thanks!

:yourock:

[Clark2008]

69. Actually, the sentiment behind this idea is a good one

Back when news people actually care about reporting the news and not spinning it, reporters were taught to write at an eighth-grade educational level so that the most educated doctor AND the least educated farmer could both understand and have access to news and information that affected their daily lives.

It was a noble reason, really. News people wanted to inform ALL citizens and not just a select few.

[Stop_the_War]

4. Too many big words? Not at all

Our huge vocabularies are quite useful when confusing those dumb Republicans. They get confused by such "big" words as "constitution" and "inalienable right" but you know they have no regard for those things anyway.

[durutti]

5. The problem is this...

Corporate America generally and conservatives in particular have been very successful at hijacking political discourse in this country. They're taken a series of myths -- the "liberal media", "left-wing academia", Left elitism, and so on, and repeated them so often that many people accept them uncritically as facts.

Consequently, progressive ideas are not easily condensed into soundbytes. I've been accused of "speaking in essay form".

[beam me up scottie]

7. Exactly! This is what they used to beat Kerry with during the campaign.

[durutti]

10. Yup.

So what we really need to do is concentrate on building the various new social movements and reinvigorate old ones, in order to attack the conservative hegemony of ideas.

[beam me up scottie]

19. there you go again...

:eyes:
Seriously, though, trying to educate the average voter didn't seem to work, but I really don't want to have the party "dumb down" in order to get their attention.
Any thoughts?
(live in a red state, work with freepers, anti intellectualism spreading like wildfire-help me!):spank:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

23. Was your post a demonstration of what to do

or what not to do? It seemed to betray a condescending attitude while telling us liberals not to have a condescending attitude. Just curious.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solly Mack]

32. You're obviously too dumb to comprehend the rules for registering

at DU.

[Az]

38. So are you suggesting that we are better lead by those of lower

linguistic capabilities? I am confused here. We are siting statics that seem to show that some political opportunists deliberately target their ideas to less sophisticated audiences. That as marketting techniques have taken over discussion of political ideas the conversation has publically taken a turn for the less educated path.

Government should not be a matter of marketting. Rather it should be a discourse on the betterment of of our social structure. Unfortunately the advent of modern marketting techniques have introduced decpetive tactics that were not once available at the scale that is now present.

The mirror you hold up merely points out that there are those that wish to rise above the petty populist squabbles and instead discern a better way. Then there are those that cling to outmoded ideas and resist progress. Their fear of change leads them to grasp at misleading notions about tradition and charismatic leaders.

[drdtroit]

52. Liberal "elitism" is viewed as such only by those who have

neglected to educate themselves. If that happens to encompass a majority of Republican voters than they only have themselves to blame for being "left behind".

[Maat]

50. I disagree. most respectfully, 'sleepy.'

Conservatives tend not to want to listen patiently to the facts. They tend just to throw out rhetoric. For example, in a recent article I read on rightwing website, the author said something to the effect that all empirical evidence shows that children that grow up in a home with a gay couple do not function as well throughout their lives as those raised in a home with a mother and father. I e-mailed the author asking for a 'cite,' and whether or not such a study was a peer-reviewed study conducted using generally accepted techniques. I thus far have received no citation. For the sake of embarassment, in this instance, I won't mention the author in question's name (unless it is insisted upon).

Hey, if someone calls me a 'liberal elite,' because I can cite an article or treatise backing up what I contend, then I'm proud of such a label.

[misanthrope]

6. For what?...

...To say exactly what you mean?

Why in the world would you let someone else's shortcomings define your potential?

When you lower the bar, you're not elevating a damn thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Part and parcel of framing the debate

first off when you speak watch out for Republican frames... if you say social security reform, well man what could be wrong with it? (Stop the tomatoes and think ) If you follow social security reform wiht it is not in trouble... well you are giving two contradictory messages, how could something that needs reform not be in trouble? This is the genious of Republican Talking Points

So instead of going into an essay on why Social Security does not need reform, simply find a new frame... use social security dismantling is their goal and it is truly not in trouble.

Read Lackoff's "don't think of an elephant," and visit the framing the debate group

It is not the big words, truly, but the choise of words.

Speaking off these days republicans are accuing me of being weird, since I call pro fetus people well pro fetus, and the GOP the Credid Card Party... try it... it will lead to some break troughs. Hell I have even let others know that they are truly liberal, and that is a moment of triumph, even if I do this only once, it is a small victory... now if I can repeat it....

[benburch]

16. I agree with what you say, however...

Are there any studies that indicate whether difficult words cause low-literacy readers to tune out?

[Canuckistanian]

11. I haven't the slightest glimmer of comprehension

as to that obtuse reference.

[Canuckistanian]

12. It would explain "nukular"

It's a deliberate attempt to make the boy-king "just one of the guys"

[JanMichael]

13. No.

See how easy that is?

[JanMichael]

15. On the other hand socialists, like myself, use words that I don't even...

...get. Ugh...Dialactical Materialism???? Fuck ME! Huh?

While I have embraced Brevity as a guiding force, my fellow travellers have not all done the same.

<sigh>

[punpirate]

17. Truthfully...

... I don't think it's the language that's the problem--it's the message.

Yes, Bush picked up some support from the part of the population that sign their paychecks in crayon, but most are literate enough to read at better than an eighth grade reading level.

The genuine problem is that they aren't sophisticated enough about use of the language to realize that they are being bamboozled by the Bushies--they really do believe what he says, for a host of well-established psychological reasons, reasons which are borne out by advertising research, clinical psychology and media analysis.

The polls strongly suggested this with regard to essential questions in the campaign--all the big points in the administration's deceptive program to build support for the war were ratified to a high degree by Bush voters--they really do believe what he says--even though all the evidence indicates the Bushies were lying, or at the very least, were immensely deceptive about the available intelligence.

The other consideration has to be that people, in large part, aren't getting their facts from news any longer, so the very notion of what constitutes a fact is starting to blur. Again using the above example, the fact is that the primary conclusion of the Duelfer report was that there were no WMDs before the war and hadn't been since the inspection teams did their work. The people supporting Bush believed, according to the polls, that it came to precisely the opposite conclusion, in large part because trusted members of the administration (particularly Cheney) continued to say, when questioned about the report, that there were weapons, and the news reported--and emphasized--those comments, rather than the substance of the report.

It's a very difficult concept to get one's head around, I admit, that a significant part of the voting population trusts the Bushies, but the simple truth is that there are more people out there who trust the government than don't. These people are the most corrupt in the country's history, so why isn't everyone able to see that?, or so the thinking goes.

It's part of the reason why so many people still think that the United States lavishes foreign aid money on ungrateful little countries all around the world, or that all our military interventions are honorable, or that our businesses are bringing a better way of life to billions of starving people, and no one thanks us for all that. Some of it is denial, but a significant part of it is the propagandizing carried out by the government, the media and the self-propagandizing that goes on in the people's heads as an adjunct of nationalism.

Skepticism is, to my mind, a rarer and rarer virtue. Perhaps, you should think about using language in a way which tries to generate some skepticism in the reader, rather than thinking about language in terms of reading level.

Cheers.

[Cleita]

18. When I was a secretary and actually had to write letters

for my literacy challenged bosses, I found that I had to express things in the simplest terms possible with the shortest, most commonly used vocabulary. This was so that not only would the recipient understand what was being said, but the el bosso too, for he was the one who signed them.

Maybe we should do this.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

31. Right winger or not, she's right on this one.

There's considerable irony in people denouncing the myth of liberal elitism in a thread where they are also discussing how to "dumb down" their message for the Great Unwashed.

[Bouncy Ball]

46. Hey I don't agree with the idea of dumbing things down

look further down for my thoughts on the main thread.

But this poster admitted they are a right winger and this is a forum for Democrats. The posting rules are pretty clear.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

37. This is a forum for Democrats.

It's paid for by Democrats, owned by Democrats, and exists for Democrats and others who share our goals.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sonicx]

41. Go to FreeRepublic or an open forum for politics

This has been a Dems and Libs forum from the start, and we aren't changing it for you.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

66. I can't speak for FR but this is not an echo chamber

Believe me there are many views here. But it is a place where we plan and form tactics for dealing with conservatives. We don't agree with their positions. Thus debating with a conservative here does not serve our purpose. It draws our discussions to the center rather than where we wish to focus. We are trying to advance ideas not repel conservatives. And inviting conservatives would create just that sort of environment.

[Clark2008]

73. What would you like to debate on?

May I ask you a few questions?

1.) How can you justify the war in Iraq now that the Bush Administration has called off the search of the weapons of mass destruction? There were no ties to al-Qaeda and the people didn't ask us to liberate them from Saddam or anything else.

2.) Doesn't it bother you that Bush has run up such a high deficit that our children and grandchildren will be slaving for years to come to pay it down? I always thought conservatives were the party that concerned itself with lowering deficits and practicing moderate taxation (as opposed to absolutely no taxation).

3.) Doesn't it bother you that the richest among us get personal tax breaks that haven't really helped the economy (people don't necessarily use their personal tax relief to invest in hiring more people - that can, but do they?)

4.) Why don't you care what the rest of the world thinks about our president? It seems to me that, after 9/11, we should have all awoken to the fact that we do not live on a lone-man's island. What we do, as the most powerful nation, effects what other countries and their people do. Doesn't it bother you that other nations think we're either bullys, dumb or uncaring?

Those are just starters.

[Bouncy Ball]

74. He's gone. Tombstoned.

[Bouncy Ball]

44. Again

go read the rules for posting. You apparently either didn't read them when you signed up or totally ignored them.

[Bouncy Ball]

43. Go read the rules for posting here.

Be enlightened. This isn't a country, it's a website.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bouncy Ball]

48. A snippet from the rules for posting

"If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

If you have been banned from Democratic Underground, you are not permitted to log on again using a different username. Previously banned members will be immediately banned, regardless of behavior."

That should be a big hint. There are different types of website for different types of discourse. This is a website for Democrats and progressives. You are neither.

[Sparkly]

60. We hear from conservatives All... The... Time....

They run the White House, both houses of Congress, the courts, and the media, thank you very much. (And contrary to yet another assumption, there is plenty of disagreement here among liberals!)

[Spiffarino]

61. I like conservatives

...and I debate with them all the time. It's great. However, this isn't the place to do that. DU exists so we have a place to take a breather, gather our thoughts and then, if we choose, move on to open forums and debate head-on.

You are probably a really good person. Just remember that the majority of us are nice people, too. This forum serves a very specific purpose. Being a conservative I'm sure you understand that we all have the freedom to consort with like-minded individuals and exclude those who would disrupt.

It's sort of like church. I wouldn't go into your church and tell you I thought your beliefs were nonsense. That would be very wrong. Likewise, I wouldn't go into FR and tell them they're all crazy, no matter how much I believe it sometimes.

Lurk for a while and see if you can find some common ground. There actually are Republicans here who find it enjoyable.

Cheers,
Spiff

[Bouncy Ball]

63. He's gone.

Tombstoned.

[Spiffarino]

70. Bummer

I was going to link to an earlier post where we'd been having a lively debate on the topic of "personal responsibility" and the RW's bastardization of the term. If she hadn't gotten so snarky, it could have been fun.

Oh well.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[American Tragedy]

64. I'm not surprised. You clearly care little for, um, political sensitivity.

For God's sake, you couldn't come up with a better adjective than Mongoloid? You sound like a nineteenth century colonialist.

Mind you, I hate political correctness more than almost anybody here, but this is just embarrassing. It reminds me of a guy I dated once who derisively referred to something as being "so Jewish".

[NightTrain]

68. Hey, if "Mongoloid" was good enough for Devo, it's good enough for me.

And frankly, I just don't give a flying fuck who I offend. Sorry!

[American Tragedy]

90. Fair enough.

O8)

[double_helix]

22. IMO, there is something to the charge re "liberal elite".

In my Independent view, there is a dynamic on the left which rewards intellectualism for intellectualism's sake.

I've found, sometimes, when disagreeing with liberals they tend to attack punctuation, grammar etc if they can't beat the argument. It becomes a punctuation/grammar game instead of the search for the truth.

Conservatives do something similar from the anti-intellectualist right - they'll say you are out of touch with the common folk, "ivory tower", etc. George Bush is the perfect example.

But overall, I'd say that IMO, liberals are much more prone to this "language elitism" than conservatives.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

29. "This is essentially the conservative philosophy,

that personal responsibility is not a weight but true freedom."

Oh really? Is it "personal responsibility" to refuse to admit mistakes, deny accountability, give medals to people who screwed up, and fire people who told the truth?

Is it "personal responsibility" to have gained absolutely NOTHING in one's life solely on one's own talents and hard work, to become leader of the free world and then joke about one's own laziness and mediocrity?

Is it "personal responsibility" to whine about paying one's taxes, cheer for a war one refuses to fight in, pass along debt to future generations so rich people can have a tax cut today, let industry pollute and pass the cost of cleanup to taxpayers, etc. etc...?

Personal responsibility is obviously NOT the conservative philosophy!!

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

36. The idea that "personal responsibility" is the cornerstone of conservative

politics is most definitely a BushCo talking point.

Liberals do not enjoy paying taxes for waste. Do you know how much we spend for interest on the national debt? That's waste.

We also don't cheer abuse of social programs. Where did you get the idea that conservatives are somehow distinguished from liberals in opposing abuse of social programs and wasteful government spending?

You know where and so do I.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

49. Read the Constitution some time

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Really read that. This is the text upon which our nation and its laws are founded. We are an experiment in societies. We are striving to create a better more unified nation. That means sometimes we have to help those that cannot help themself. And yet the right seems bent on sliding everything into the hands of the Corporations who have no interest in our well being.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

57. And I reiterate I am happy for you

But you are not everyone. Not everyone has the same hurdles or the same advantages. For everyone that does have the courage and strength to lift themself out of the pit there are many that cannot. We are born blind and screaming into this world and it is only by helping each other that any manage to survive. This nation was created on that principle as well as independence. That We The People can make this a better world for all of us to live in.

[Az]

45. I am happy things worked out for you

Unfortunately while everyone is born with equal rights (unless someone refuses to recognise them) not everyone is born with equal capabilities. What you describe is a merritocracy. And while it sounds nice on paper, like socialism is a utopian dream that will never function on its own.

Some people simply do not have the same capabilities. And its not just a question of intelligence. There are a multitude of factors that can affect a person's path. To presume that everyone can just life themself up by their bootstraps assumes an equal playing field. Ideally it should be. We do not live in an ideal world.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

54. And where did you read that

Are you falling for the myth of the welfare queen? Yes a few will abuse the system. But most try to get out of trouble if they can. Just as you did. This is the thing. The conservatives seem (and this may not be your case) to get bent out of shape when they find a few abusing the system. Now this could be an honest misunderstanding on their part. But it comes off as simply seeking an excuse to repeal the help so needed out of greedy interests.

[wtmusic]

75. No one here is sending that message

and since you're asking us to abandon stereotypes we'll ask you to do the same -- namely, the one that Democrats favor free handouts for poor people.

Let's put some proportion on this. The federal payout for welfare was $16.5 billion in 2002. We've spend $240 billion in Iraq. Now -- what should we be more concerned about?

[double_helix]

58. I disagree with both liberals and conservatives

who I see as two sides of the same coin, in many ways.

Aside from each party's stated personal philosophy, Dems favor a certain class of people, and Repubs favor another. And I'm not just talking about economics. They each have many double and triple standards.

Also, it's not just that libs and cons have different philosophies - but they think differently. Liberals tend to think in an overly soft, empathetic, feminine and radically subjective manner; Conservatives tend to think in an overly hard, detached, masculine and radically objective manner.

At this point in time I tend to agree more with the conservatives, who I see as having a firmer grip on reality. But I am not a conservative. I voted for Bill Clinton, who I saw as a moderate and a pragmatist, which is what I look for in my leaders. I also voted for George Bush in 2000, who I saw as possessing the same qualities. I was wrong though, and voted against him in 2004.

Just remember, any time you become part of a political party, you lose the ability to think and see what's really going on. In the spirit of personal responsibility and individualism - think for yourself and vote accordingly - don't let the kool-aid drinkers on either side pull you into their cult.

[Sparkly]

67. Unbelievable.

"Liberals tend to think in an overly soft, empathetic, feminine and radically subjective manner; Conservatives tend to think in an overly hard, detached, masculine and radically objective manner."

"Just remember, any time you become part of a political party, you lose the ability to think and see what's really going on."

Would that cause me to buy into ridiculous generalizations and stereotypes?

:eyes:

[double_helix]

77. The extreme avoidance of "generalizations and stereotypes"

is radical subjectivism.

It's not simply that you disagree with what I stated, but you disagree that a firm, objective statement can be made about anything -- especially not people, who you may empathize with.

Making generalizations is part of rational thinking. Otherwise, it's impossible to stay connected to reality.

[coda]

80. LOL. You remind me of a quote from Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard

"Conservative news organizations are popular, he admitted, because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat.... While these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective.... It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket."

-- Matt Labash, senior writer with The Weekly Standard



How about the radically subjective use of intelligence that sold this war, for starters?

All from an Admin whose policies are based purely on idealology, this not from liberals but from people who formerly worked in this Admin.

A war that was promised to cost the American people only 1.7 billion is now 100 times that. A faith-based notion that we would be greeted by flowers and candy, that leads to no post war plan.

Dismissing science that runs counter to policy, and despite warnings from longtime Republicans in Congress, appointing and installing only the most partisan officials. Little accountability or oversight, dropping ethics rules, explosive growth in the government (outside of increased national security spending), record trade deficits and budget deficits, as well as lying (in the neighborhood of 40%) about the cost of the largest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years, along with the bribes and breaking of House rules to ramrod it through.


And for all this, the conservatives turned out in droves to insure another 4 years of it.

Look up any of the polls done on public misperceptions about the war in Iraq and see what group leads in those misperceptions.

To claim liberals are more subjective than conservatives is silly on its face.

[Runcible Spoon]

95. I don't know which liberals with whom you have been talking...

but this charge of language elisitsm is something that highly educated liberals notice and take into consideration. See Lakoff's growing popularity. Language does not have to be overly florid, complex, and esoteric to be "elitist". I would argue that Bush's faux-folky downhome drawls and simplistic memes are "elite" because they have served to manipulate certain segmetns of the population to vote for him; as Gransci points out, power is rarely taken by brute force- rather the oppressed classes are somewhat complicit in their subjugation. I think language used by those in power to further consolidate power, whether they are Bushims or not, is what language elitism really is, irregardless of how many 50-cent words or complex prose is (or is not) used. For some of us, being highly educated allows us to see the dynamics of language elitism. For example, I have an MA in anthropology and linguistics and many of my professors see standardization of languages as tied to increasing class stratification; it becomes another form of socialized hegemony. See Gramsci, Fairclough, Foucault, and Giddens for more detailed discussions of power institutions in capitalistic societies, inclusding the standardization of languages and socialization dynamics in education, workplace, etc.

[Deja Q]

24. Or, if we do, where did it come from?

For me, my excuse is that I watched too much PBS as a kid, which is also why I have a British accent that Americans love and the Brits would likely hate. :-)

I've been told by management to use language that everybody else can understand, but otherwise my writing skills are excellent. (Yes, I know it takes a moment to look up britannica.com, but still... I relish the English language. It's the most needlessly complicated language and I, too right, will exercise my use of it as much as possible. )

[Bouncy Ball]

27. No.

And I'm sorry but I refuse to act dumb and water down my vocabulary to get a point across. It's not as if my language is so sophisticated that no one can understand. And I DO somewhat modify to fit the situation/audience.

But no. I think it's insulting for both participants in a conversation to even think this way. ("Oh I better use smaller words so they can understand me.")

[BigMindTinyHead]

34. not the most literate of people

"It should be pretty obvious that the lower-middle-class GOP voters, the backbone of the power wielded by the GOP, are not the most literate of people."

While we are generalizing, how do they compare to the inner-city-lower-middle-class DEM voters, the backbone Democratic voter base with respect to literacy?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bouncy Ball]

65. Oh hell, they are FAR more literate than your

average repuke voter! So no worries!

[Lorien]

79. Since my repug neighbors seem to communicate by making

belches and chicken noises (I'm serious. So far I've discovered that Bwack-BAA!" Means "welcome home" and "rhaaaaa-baa" means "I'm full",ROH RAH! seems to have a negative connotation, and a belch usually means "bring me another beer"). Since studies have proven that liberalism increases with the amount of education a person has received, one must assume that liberals overall possess greater vocabularies.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

53. I had a Professor once tell me to scale my speech to the audience...

I'm addressing. I use that as a rule of thumb to this day.

When I'm trying to make a point or tell a story, I use language my audience can grasp.

[Gabi Hayes]

56. pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

no

[wtmusic]

76. showoff!

:P

[otohara]

101. LOL

you bad! :hi:

[solinvictus]

59. Liberal vocabularization...

Well, if they don't like our vocabularizations, then they should listen to Rush and order "Hooked on Phonics" so they can learn all of them big Northeastern smarty-pants words.

[gottaB]

62. And if I said we need to reframe it as the difference between

monosyllabic and polysyllabic registers?

I'll be here all week. But seriously...

As I see it, the backbone of the GOP is the top 2 income quintiles, while the middle quintile is up for grabs. Last time they went for Bush. Most of them can handle fancy words. There's obviously some numbing of the intellect among Bush voters. To the extent that their stupidity is intentional, appeals to reason will fall on deaf ears, no matter what words are chosen.

Faux dumb, real dumb, what's a liberal to do? I suggest laughing at them. If we're smart about it, we can play with the difference between laughing at them and laughing with them. If they don't want to own up to their stupidity, we don't have to own up to laughing at them.

How do you get a Bush voter to invest in your cockamamie stock investment scheme? Steal his T bills. Ha ha ha. I'll be here all week.

[Erika]

78. Interesting Thread

I see another tombstone.

I have never seen or heard democrat refer to a republican as the "unwashed" but I frequently see it the other way around. The republicans talk about the liberal elitists who keep the minorities "on the plantation" by giving them hand outs. As if minorities biggest concern is receiving handouts rather than being responsible as a citizen and an American.

I find republicans racist in nature.

[benburch]

89. I sure seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest...

I agree the essence of Republicanism is racism. The GOP is the modern incarnation of the Klan.

[leesa]

81. Maybe we need to learn to be dyslexic and to drool as well.

Sorry. Amerika is dumb enough already.

[SmokingJacket]

82. NO!!!

We have to speak honestly. Choosing deliberately pretentious language is wrong, but so is "dumbing down" our language.

Getting rid of "big" words just because they're big will drain our language of specificity.

Clear, accurate, honest is language is one thing I refuse to sacrifice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. yes, we do

[Lorien]

84. Where?

I've never seen such a display on this board. Maybe in the early days of DU, but no longer.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. nytimes vs the post

not a message board issue a mass media issue

[Runcible Spoon]

96. Oh I see, Old Skool DU

had a higher proportion of smarty-pants eh? :eyes:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

85. you say that like it's a bad thing..........

[La Lioness Priyanka]

87. it is bad when most people arent reading the times

but picking up rupert murdochs easier to read rag instead

[11 Bravo]

88. Huh?

[TXlib]

91. The Myth of Liberal Arrogance/Elitism

It's pretty hard to dispute such myths when the attitude often IS present.

Now, regarding your question, I believe it is good style not to use one 50-cent word, when two 25-cent words would suffice. All too often, people try to hide their lack of message in a torrent of polysyllabic words.

(NB: I had to suppress the urge to use the word "obfuscate" in this post. I guess I only partly succeeded. :-) )

[Az]

93. Eschew obfuscation

Sux syntax! :evilgrin:

[NoStinkinBadges]

94. I agree.

Having problems with the English language is common with both parties. One even happens to have this problem at the top.

[Catfight]

92. "Why use a big word when a diminutive word will work just fine." nt

[indigobusiness]

97. Clarity is what matters.

Another example of the unimportance of size.

[lapislzi]

98. I've been dealing with this my whole life

I have a large vocabulary, and I'm not afraid to use $10 words if they're appropriate to the situation. I don't show off, but I get shit for it constantly--ironically, from people who are equally intelligent, but find my word use pretentious.

For them, I have 2 small words that anyone can understand.

[msmcghee]

99. It has nothing to do with your words . .

You could use the simplest words to explain why Social Security should be preserved or why it is wrong to torture POW's in our name. They wouldn't get it.

You could use the most complex argument and incomprehensible words possible - to explain why Bush is good for America - and the dumbest freeper'd have no trouble following you.

Linguistic tricks and "framing" are not going to change any minds.

The only thing that will work is fighting for our values and proving over time that they are the real American values - values like honesty, fairness, compassion, tolerance and equal justice.

If we're not willing to fight for those - we don't deserve them.

[pdxmom]

100. It isn't a matter of dumbing down

it's a matter of talking to your audience. You have to be able to deliver a message to different groups in a way that is most appropriate for that group.

When you talk down to people, they know it. When you try to adjust your language to appear to "fit in", they know it. It's almost an art form.

[orpupilofnature57]

103. A word is a vehicle for an idea, who drives fucking hummers

People, that say inarticulate shit like "it's hard work"