Thread by @brianbeutler

I interviewed several San Quentin inmates a few years ago for a reporting project on felon disenfranchisement. All of them stipulated to their guilt. After the formal part was over we were shooting the shit and one of them asked me how I’d refer to them as a group in the writing.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1461342371254259726

I said I hadn’t thought about it, but probably a mix of terms like prisoners, inmates, and felons. They were to a person wounded by “felons,” since it defined them by their worst actions. But only one guy spoke up to request “people with felony convictions.”

I said (in essence) I wouldn’t go that far because the felony convictions didn’t just happen to them, and this was a series about the right to vote despite criminal history. He thought that was reasonable and that was the end of it and I used “prisoners” a lot and it was fine.

Moral of the story is people want others to treat them with empathy and there’s no contradiction between being empathic and using clear language, and that’s a better guide star than a paint-by-numbers approach with the clunky, changing idioms you see online.

If you think (as I do) that “homeless” has clearer meaning than “experiencing…” because it points to a social problem rather than an individual’s (seemingly transient) circumstances, use it. In empathic context. The writing will be sharper and no one will jump down your throat.

Acting in good faith, being decent, etc. >> rules of language articulated by people with dubious authority.