• chloroken@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Baffling statement. “Bourgeois” is one of two words that define the way my ‘side’ views the world. I don’t think you and I are on the same side.

      • Doug Holland@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s a question I’ve wondered for decades: Why do so many socialists speak in code-words — Bolsheviks, bourgeoisie, Engels, Marx, proletaritat, etc — which only push people away? Socialism is a grand concept; why not translate it into English?

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      This, what you say is not as important as “How you say it”

      See the idiots going “I hate Obamacare, but I love ACA!”

      • Doug Holland@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s a good start, but I’d go with ‘owners’ and occasionally stress, ‘all owners.’

        People respect plain speaking, and suspect convoluted speaking. If we want to win folks over, plain speaking is the way.

        • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          Drag owns a toothbrush. Drag isn’t a member of the owning class, but drag is in the most literal sense an “owner”. Drag recognises you’re using a technical definition of a common term, but drag doesn’t think liberals will understand. They’ll see your language as convoluted.