Words are not just words.

When we talk about “public discourse,” it’s not enough to just show up and say, I was willing to hear the other side. We have to ask: what are we really doing with our words?

A “debate” is not the same thing as an “open discussion.” “Persuasion” isn’t neutral. “Propaganda” cloaks itself in the language of freedom.

Too often, these words are blurred together — leaving us to believe we’ve witnessed open dialogue, when in reality, the space was shaped to steer, convince, or conquer. If we want to honestly claim we understand public discourse, we must first understand the words we use to describe it. Because clarity of language shapes clarity of thought.

And perhaps the deeper reflection is this: real dialogue isn’t about victory, it’s about presence. It isn’t about bending others to our will, but about being willing to meet at the edges of our differences — without disguising our intent.

The invitation: Pay attention to the words we use — and the intentions behind them. That’s where real understanding begins.