Avoid Contentious Terms

There are advantages to this style of writing even when the general term isn't contentious.

These kinds of concrete descriptions encourage readers to look at the world and see what's there, rather than engaging primarily with you and your concepts.

This can be good for people who know less about the topic, since looking at the world has fewer prerequisites. And it can be good for people who know more about the topic, since they can gain texture and depth by looking at new examples.

Though with non-contentious topics it's easier to add a general term at the end as a label to remember, or to tie the post into a larger conversation, without overshadowing the rest of the post.

Related:

Avoid Unnecessarily Political Examples [LW · GW]

Avoid inflationary use of terms [LW · GW]

The Thing and the Symbolic Representation of The Thing [LW · GW]

Replace the Symbol with the Substance [LW · GW]

I agree with the overarching sentiment of this post, especially as a tool for making one's writing more inviting to "new people," as it were. I do disagree with the avoidance of the word consent specifically. For one thing, I do remember reading the Tickling post and feeling like it was "somewhat detached from the broader conversation," but I also feel like normalizing using consent to refer to mundane, non-sexual, non-violent situations is a good thing. I suppose it's a personal opinion whether this expansion of the usage of consent is a good thing or not, but I feel like it's a bit less politicized compared to all of your other examples that it's worth considering on its own. 

Another approach is to try to put your ideas into words that others can understand. Bring in descriptive alternatives to your specialized terminology. 

In a hypothetical conversation about "dangerous ideologies", you might say: "Are we talking about homophobia?" If the answer is yes, then you know you can talk about fundamentalism, doctrinal interpretation, and tribal heuristics -- ideas that can be explained using metaphors everyone understands. 

From there you can begin to explain how these uniquely interact with homophobia to create a dangerous ideology, and why criticism isn't working. In a case like this you might not need to do much work. You can take the general ideas of your most recent writing and transform them into more accessible language for the audience you're trying to reach. 

Someone arguing against same-sex marriage because of religious objections may actually be fixable with a few  conversations, and if your concern was painting the movement as creepy or aggressive this might actually advance your cause more than attempts to directly change their minds with data. 

Still, all this takes more time and you have to be sure you are addressing the actual problem. 

You could rephrase a conspiracy theory into more neutral language and patiently correcting adherents until it makes sense, or you could spend days putting together an emotional appeal to take the place of misinformation. 

The former may work, but it's not a good use of time if the only people reading it are already lost. 

"There are no government attempts to control how many children you have. If you have more than two kids and aren't rich you're an idiot." Here, I've replaced "Malthusian ideology" with something understandable, and defined my terminology so it will slot into conversation easier. 

This will help people read what you say and understand your perspective, but it won't guarantee success. This may not be enough to convince someone already emotionally invested in their position. Nonetheless, I will give it a try.