Let's try using the long form.

[LAS14]

Last edited Thu Oct 9, 2025, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)

On one of Judy Woodruff's America at a Crossroads episodes she was exploring why the membership of "bridging groups" is so heavily tilted toward the left (e.g., 54% to 15%). If the goal of a group is to get the left and the right talking, this isn't good. One woman said they were trying to get people to avoid words that trigger a knee jerk reaction on the right, words that signal a left leaning opinion even if that isn't the intention. Example words were "equity" and "racist." Woodruff asked what people should say instead and she replied (words to the effect of), "We try to explain in long form what we're doing, how we're trying to bring people of all opinions together."

The idea of talking in "long form" when addressing a wide swath of people rings true to me.

Just wanted to share this with those of you here on DU who are looking for opportunities to bridge divides.

Aside: When one organizer was asked to explain the disproportionate representation, he said the movement may look too "Kumbaya" to conservatives. Too focused just on talk.

[genxlib]

1. Long form communication is dead

It was murdered by Twitter

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. The skin-color-sensitives are pushing centralized control of corporations to enhance their nudging of elections.

That's long-form for

"The racist fascists are shutting down democracy."

[haele]

3. The problem with bridging discussions is that it requires all sides to be open,

Be it long form communications or not.
Here's the problem when dealing with bridging - Grievance.
Not "Who wins" but who is going to lose the most when the bridging discussion is over. If the loss seems fair and equitable, or the gains across all parties outweigh any losses, the conversation works.
The levels of grievance, legitimate or perceived, that is assuaged or mitigated in each group participating will dictate the acceptance between the parties.

Always remember - those who benefit from a privilege, whether they know it or not, are usually not inclined to share that privilege if the perception is that they might lose some benefit or the other parties may end up with what seems like giving more benefit because they're figuratively "catching up"...
...things like subsidies for education or health care in underserved or poor communities specially designed for those who didn't have access to tools that lead to better outcomes.
It's easy to inflame racial or cultural grievance holding up a few of a privileged category of people that are failing and yelling - "Is this fair? Those people getting that stuff now without having to beg, and these people still have to beg ... You're making things easier for those people"
While those people start getting attacked for trying to enter a now more equal playing field.

And the cycle of grievance begins anew.
I don't have an answer for it. Other than pointing out the social problems we have always seems to break down to what in the West used to be called "The Seven Deadly Sins".

[LAS14]

4. Reply from a friend via e-mail.

Yes, I agree that language helps build walls, and extinguishes real sharing. I cringe every time I hear our City Council member, a rabid member of the Democratic Socialists of America, using the words “progressive”, “equity”, etc.  They are not just words with meaning. They’re attempts at walling off people, identifying some as friends, others as foes, the righteous vs. the unrighteous, the washed vs. the unwashed. They are a way of hinting at what either you don’t want to say in detail in public, or they simply reflect lazy thinking, kind of like excessive swearing usually just reflects a lazy mind.