Voters Have Good “Bullsh*t Detectors.”
Stop using language that trips their “jargon” alarms.
I don’t want to think about the State of the Union, so here’s something completely different. We love to make up new language, but given how brains work, the most effective language is that which people already use in their everyday lives. When we use words in unusual ways, we trigger people’s “jargon” alarms, signaling inauthenticity which is political poison. Here are some words and phrases that we need to stop using and why, and some alternatives.
Jargon Alarms
Voters have good “bullsh*t detectors.”
I have talked a lot in the past about how language works - by triggering the activation of concepts people already hold in their brains. When our language doesn’t work right subconsciously, it just feels “off” to people, and that triggers their jargon alarms. As authenticity is the most important quality people are looking for in candidates (and all public figures, companies and brands), our excessive use of jargon may be a major driver of our brand’s high negatives.
Let’s look at some of the words and phrases that are currently triggering my jargon alarms, like “inflection point,” “lowering,” and “freedoms (plural).” I will talk about what makes them not work.
Thank you for reading Reframing America! My work is completely financed by subscribers like you! All content is free, but many people choose to become paying subscribers to help support this mission of improving how we communicate! Use this link to subscribe or upgrade! Thank you!
What Not to Say
What to say instead, and some advice to keep in mind.
Use words that voters use in conversation.
Don’t Say: Centering
Say: Focusing on or prioritizing
We can “center” the economy in our messaging. Just don’t say “centering” to voters. Non-activists do not use center as a verb unless they are centering a plate on a placemat.
Don’t Say: Everyday people
Say: Regular people, folks, working people, the American people, or just everybody but billionaires.
“Everyday people” was created by pollsters, but they only succeeded in coming up with something that doesn’t make sense. Are there “special occasion” people? No. “The American people” might be a cliché, but it’s a cliché that evokes patriotism and unity.
Don’t Say: Inflection point
Say: Turning point, decision point, or my favorite: fork in the road
Nobody knows what it means and we sound like pretentious jerks every time we use it. Also, we should not abandon the phrase “turning point.” It’s just a normal phrase people use. If we keep using it, it remains a normal phrase. If we stop using it, it becomes the exclusive property of Charlie Kirk’s organization. Use it or lose it.
Don’t Say: Fraudsters
Say: Cheaters, criminals, white collar criminals, people who commit fraud.
Using “fraudsters” trivializes whatever crime we’re talking about! “Fraudsters” evokes the term “pranksters,” used to imply that the activity in question is not criminal, just goofing around or having a little fun at someone else’s expense.
Don’t Say: Well-paying jobs
Say: Good jobs, good-paying jobs or jobs that pay well.
I don’t care if it’s grammatically correct, and I am not even sure it is. It isn’t how regular folks talk. I prefer “good job” because there’s more to a good job than the paycheck. There’s dignity and benefits and more. But if you are talking specifically about wages, try “jobs that pay well.”
Don’t Say: Commonsense
Say: Common sense
This takes a perfectly normal descriptive phrase and converts it into an adjective. A “common sense plan” sounds like common sense. A “commonsense” plan sounds like bullsh*t.
Don’t Say: Food insecurity
Say: hunger, risk going hungry, or in danger of going hungry
Everybody gets that “food insecurity” is jargon, but let’s talk about why it doesn’t work.
Use unambiguous language.
Never use the SECONDARY MEANING of a word. When the listener hears a trigger word, the most commonly used meaning activates first, sending people off in the wrong direction. Then we have to get them to consciously over-ride their own subconscious reaction.
Messaging should work subconsciously and instantaneously. Messaging that requires extra cognitive labor is messaging that fails.
In “food insecurity,” the term “insecurity” activates the idea that the person is emotionally insecure, which implies that they are over-reacting to the situation and that they should change their attitude. It subconsciously makes them responsible for their condition which is not what we are trying to convey. People who are at risk of going hungry need reliable access to food, not a better attitude.
Use visceral language.
Never use INTELLECTUAL words when you could use VISCERAL words instead. Activating a visceral or descriptive word also triggers emotions and physiological reactions such as disgust, releasing oxytocin (the “love” hormone), or stimulating the amygdala (threat warning, fight or flight). These words create powerful positive or negative associations that convey judgment at a deeper level. Words that are processed cerebrally do not have nearly as much impact.
People know what “hunger” feels like. Words like “risk” and “danger” also activate our nervous system. Use them to evoke empathy.
Don’t Say: Existential crisis or existential threat
Say: A threat to our existence
Every time I hear this, I imagine someone in a black beret sitting in a smoky café, reading Camus. We are not having a philosophical crisis or facing a threat to the meaning of our existence. We are talking about a crisis in which our actual existence is under threat, or the existence of whatever it is we are talking about. “Existential crisis” is confusing and devoid of emotion. A “threat to our existence” is clear and powerful.
The way that words sound matters too.
Don’t Say: Lowering (prices)
Say: Bringing down, reducing, shrinking, decreasing
“Lowering” is a weak and awful word that I never want to hear again. Say it out loud. Consonant sounds like “l,” “r,” and “ng” get swallowed in the back of your throat. Try to use action words with solid consonants. The “b” and “d” of “bring down” are plosives: you force air out when you say them. How about “reduce”? You can put some energy behind that second syllable.
Talk about values, not policies.
Don’t Say: Freedoms (plural).
Say: Freedom.
We experience freedom viscerally as a state of being: the absence of, or release from, physical containment or constraint, and the resulting capacity for self-determination. We experience “states of being” with our whole bodies; they cannot be divided into parts any more than our bodies can be. If your bodily autonomy or right to vote is taken from you, you don’t have “fewer freedoms,” you are less free. After all, if just your foot is caught in a bear trap, all of you is not free.
We can be more happy or healthy, or less happy or healthy, but we don’t have “happinesses” or “healths.” Using “freedoms” plural reduces a treasured value that we visualize with our whole being to a list of policies that we process rationally, drastically reducing the word’s power. If you are talking specifically about a list of policies, terms like “rights” and “civil liberties” are just fine. One exception: if you are literally talking about FDR’s Four Freedoms.
Never sacrifice comprehension for precision.
Don’t Say: Equity.
Say: Equality.
Equality is also a state of being and one of our society’s most powerful values. Every person is unique, but we are all worth the same and ought to be treated as such. Why did we switch to using equity: a word we literally had to draw diagrams to get people to understand? In academia, you gain points for using the word with the most precise meaning. In the public debate, never sacrifice comprehension for precision. Use words most people understand and feel strongly about. Equity also breaks the “secondary meaning” rule. To most people, equity is value you accrue in your home. Now it’s also a new and evil kind of investment firm.
As always, values are more important than policies. People want to know what we believe to be right and wrong. They think it’s elected officials’ job to figure out how to translate those values into policies. In this case, equality is what we believe in. Equity is just one of many means to achieving it, and it’s not always relevant. It makes sense to use equity when discussing local housing policy. Not so much in fighting racial profiling, police brutality, and concentration camps. Equality is why we fight for the rule of law and due process, and against elite impunity and economic inequality.
Thank you so much for reading this. I hope it is of use to you in your work and activism!
In solidarity, always,
Like this post, but not ready to become a paying subscriber? Leave me a tip of any amount you like at my tip jar! Thank you!
Contact me at antonia@antoniascatton.com or (202) 922-6647
More…
Here are a few previous newsletters on other factors that make our language work or not work.
On why our language has to work the same way that the physical world does:
On using frames of reference to transfer meaning (and why using new terms makes us vulnerable to meaning hijacking):
On providing meaning-making narratives:
On thinking through your metaphors before you use them:
On how words can create behavioral expectations that we can utilize:
Great one, Antonia! If we're college-educated or politically active, it takes a lot of effort to scrub these words from our vocabulary and really speaks to the need for working class people to be running for office and writing speeches.
Love this! I have made a few mistakes but I can get it right. That's what life long learners do!