LGBTQ+ Communication Challenges, Humanizing Social Change

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/26

Dr. Timothy Patrick McCarthy is an award-winning Harvard scholar, educator, and human rights defender specializing in educational equity, leadership and communication, and the history of social movements. He is Faculty Chair of the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at the Kennedy School’s Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights. Diego Garcia Blum is Program Director for the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at Harvard Kennedy School. A former nuclear engineer, he now champions LGBTQI+ advocacy and co-teaches “Queer Nation” with Dr. Timothy Patrick McCarthy. David Grasso is the founder and CEO of Project Amicus, a global LGBTQ+ rights nonprofit. A Harvard Kennedy School graduate, he is also a media entrepreneur and political commentator featured on CBS, Fox News, and Newsmax. They discussed generational shifts in media consumption, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and the challenges of messaging in today’s polarized, attention-driven landscape. They explored how social media ecosystems shape information, emphasizing micro-influencers importance, humanizing marginalized communities, and balancing seriousness with humour. With firsthand experience at Harvard and through grassroots activism, they offered strategies for bridging ideological divides by using relatable storytelling, strategic platform targeting, and cultural fluency. Their insights reflect a critical need for compassionate, clear communication that honours expertise and lived experience in a fragmented digital world. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, you are here with Diego Garcia Blum, Timothy Patrick McCarthy, and David Grasso.  Whether in Boston or Texas, when looking at the new landscape of media—social media like X (formerly Twitter), Meta (Facebook and Instagram), and TikTok—which platforms do you find most effective when you want to communicate with an older generation?

Dr. Tim McCarthy: As the elder in the room, this is a big challenge in communicating broadly and specifically to different generations. We are using various platforms and other communication practices. The older you get, the more people are inclined—by how they have been socialized—to want in-person connections and email communication. Facebook is about as far as people older than me, from my age and older, get.

Some folks in Generation X and the Baby Boomer generation have migrated to platforms that are more likely to be spaces for the younger generations, but that is a relatively new phenomenon for us. People talk about “digital natives” (people who grew up with digital communication as a norm) versus “digital migrants” (those of us who did not and have had to learn these modes of communication). That distinction holds. For example, we did not have email when I was in college. I got my first email account when I started graduate school in 1993. I had to train myself to use email and other digital technologies, and that learning curve has continued over time. I am 53 now, so I am not ancient by any means.

I have tried various social media platforms like Twitter (now X), Instagram, and LinkedIn. But I have not truly taken to any of them.

David, why don’t you weigh in on that first question, and then Diego and I can follow you?

Grasso: Sure, no problem. I see where you were going with that.

We were talking, Scott, and we think older people consume information differently. That is why cable news remains so profoundly influential, especially among a demographic that votes significantly higher than younger demographics. Initially, we were talking about the importance of micro-influencing among older people. Here is a concrete example: it is currently very much in the news that Harvard University conflicts with the U.S. federal government over issues including affirmative action and freedom of speech on campus.

Since Tim was one of my professors and others, I went straight to Facebook to find out what they were thinking. What is their general line of thought? What are the next steps, especially since I am no longer on campus? As much as we hear about micro-influencing among younger people, with older people—especially regarding LGBTQ+ issues—one trusted person in their social network can significantly change their thinking and help them evolve, whether it involves politics, social issues, or something else.

Fortunately for us, many older people, despite being associated more often with social conservatism than younger generations, are more open to change because their digital environments are less saturated with media and often have longer attention spans.

Diego Garcia Blum: I would add something regarding LGBTQ+ issues as well. These very carefully crafted spin points and misinformation narratives are disseminated with precision, especially on television.

Instead of talking about LGBTQ+ people simply as people with diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity—which has existed throughout recorded history—there are all these ideas pushed that portray LGBTQ+ identities as abnormal or as a fad. Rather than trying to foster understanding, many television outlets, particularly Fox News and others, frame LGBTQ+ issues as part of a so-called “social contagion.” People, especially older people, often plug into those channels for hours.

That is why that demographic tends to fall more heavily into anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, myths, and misunderstandings. In contrast, many younger people usually get their firsthand information from friends who tell their stories, which helps challenge those talking points directly.

Usually, an older person, especially because it was much harder to come out earlier in life, may not have had the opportunity to hear directly from a transgender person, for example, and may not know one personally. That lack of firsthand connection is a challenge, especially now, when even the White House has been criticized for referring to gender-affirming care in damaging and misleading ways, framing it as something harmful rather than a recognized, evidence-based medical practice.

McCarthy: One of the things I would add to this is that the way media culture has become much more differentiated and variegated in the last two decades or more—this is a 21st-century phenomenon with the advent and proliferation of smartphones and social media—everyone is now a creator, a producer, a circulator, and a consumer.

That has not been true historically. If we are engaged on these various platforms, we will play multiple roles simultaneously, which is interesting. We are not thinking about that as intentionally as we might be.

What does it mean to consume, as opposed to create, as opposed to produce, circulate, or amplify? If we were more intentional about what roles we are playing—what hats we are wearing—at any given time, we might have less of a chaotic cacophony of information.

Interestingly, David brought up the idea of older micro-influencers. When you hear the term “influencer,” you usually think about younger folks—Gen Zers, people on TikTok generating content, often to sell, make money, gain influence, increase their celebrity, brand, or platform. I think that is the most common association.

But the idea of an influencer being older is interesting, and I had not thought about it until David gave this very specific example. I think about this in the context of what is happening on campuses right now. I went to Columbia, and when the protests were happening there last year and the administration decided not to resist federal authority, I immediately contacted people I know at Columbia. I have friends who teach there and friends in the administration. I went directly to them to understand what was going on.

In addition, on the Harvard side, I have been getting a ton of inquiries from people following what I am writing on Facebook and other platforms—though mostly on Facebook because I am not very active on other social media. They want to reach a source they perceive as closer to the situation, someone who might have firsthand experience or connections.

That dynamic is much more pronounced among Gen Xers and older generations. They are more likely to contact someone they know personally for information rather than rely on a public figure they do not personally know.

That is true. I had never thought about it as older people being influencers, too—but they are in a very different way.

Jacobsen: Do you find that younger people have a broader spread in how they use social media? Are they using not only Meta but also TikTok, Instagram, and other platforms? Or do you find they primarily focus on TikTok and Instagram for most of their viewing, consumption, and creation?

McCarthy: I will let the younger folks answer the social media question. But when I think about where I go for my information, I am on Facebook and have a pretty active presence there. I was on Twitter, though I was never very active on Meta’s other platforms. I got off Twitter because it became a sewer.

I am new to LinkedIn and do not use it as effectively as I could. However, I still get the Saturday and Sunday print editions of The New York Times delivered to my house, and I listen to NPR regularly.

I am very careful about how I curate and consume information. As for television news, I have not watched a full cable news show since the day after the election—which was not the case before the election when I watched it every day. It was on 24/7. That has changed how I engage with television media.

Someone like me uses diverse media sources, but social media is still only a relatively small percentage of that. Younger generations are not reading the New York Times print edition, listening to NPR, or watching TV regularly while working from home. They are leaning much more toward social media for their information and communication.

Grasso: But all of these are related, right? That is what people often do not understand: even now, social media has a waterfall effect.

High-level thought leadership usually comes from public leaders and official experts—journalists, academics, and policymakers. As much as we are in an anti-expertise era, it was very clear when I ran a full media brand and monitored our dashboard. Whatever you saw trending on social media fundamentally started at the top and then came down.

There is a real quality problem the further down you go. While people may be getting great information from their social media platforms, fundamentally, it is a reduced and simplified version of something in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, or another reputable outlet.

Young people must realize that whatever issue they are studying, they often get a very simplified, viral-consumption-ready version of the facts—which tends to be very low-brow. Thinkers like Tim, Diego, and others working in academia tend to go to primary rather than secondary or tertiary sources.

That is how we should think about social media: not as a source of information but as a derivative of real reporting and scholarship.

Blum: I will say that there are newsmakers, and then there are news spreaders. To grab headlines, stories often get filtered into the messaging that various outlets and creators want.

They will take a story that was maybe originally published by The New York Times and then put a spin on it—perhaps with a conservative bend or some other ideological slant. That is an interesting part of how people consume the media created by the original newsmakers.

They will also add commentary on social media about current events, and that commentary heavily influences people’s takeaways. There are also little ecosystems or media bubbles that are overtly anti-media. For example, the “manosphere” is one of them, as are many conspiracy theory groups and influencers.

These groups gain a large following by promoting messages that are oppositional, very controversial, or lacking thoughtful leadership—because the messages are often extreme or unfounded. Nevertheless, they generate significant bottom-up energy, which we now see reflected in the proliferation of podcasts, manosphere influencers, and related figures.

So yes, these ecosystems are related, and their interrelationships are incredibly complicated.

Jacobsen: I take two points from those three comments.

First, we have micro-influencers among older generations—an important concept. Second, people consume information in different ways.

So my first question is: How do you meet people where they are if they are consuming information from that lower stratum of delivery—a simplified version that does not cognitively resemble what Tim, Diego, or you, David, are reading? They are getting the story, but it is very much a caricature.

Second, I want to introduce a related concept: We have lived a few years dominated by prominent provocateurs who peaked and then faded. Do you see any phenomenon emerging around micro-provocateurs?

Grasso: I think, in general, to put a pin in this conversation, we have a major problem—especially with younger generations—distinguishing between fact and opinion.

Tim is old enough to remember when news and opinion were clearly labelled and did not bleed into each other. We are now in an era where everything is politicized. People use virtue signalling to establish their side when meeting strangers quickly.

What is happening is that the expertise class ends up talking to itself instead of reaching the wider public. This creates weird echo chambers that breed misunderstanding.

So, how do you talk to the general public? That is an art we have largely lost.

We see it a lot in our politics: Whoever can speak to the general public most effectively often wins their support. The public is not very ideological. If someone can communicate well and plainly, they are liked.

That is an important reflection here, especially talking to three Harvard-affiliated people. Public speaking is an art we have lost. Tim was actually my public speaking professor, so it is very interesting—and somewhat ironic—that although we have become so good at public speaking within elite circles, we have become terrible at speaking to the general public.

McCarthy: Interestingly, you would mention David because I think it is true—the siloing and the distance people have.

It is interesting because, in some ways, the distance has been closed. So many people are in virtual space all the time. On the face of it, there is no physical distance at all—and yet, paradoxically, there is so much distance because we are not all in the same digital or virtual spaces together at the same time. People get different information and talk in echo chambers.

That exists across the ideological spectrum. A lot of what you are saying is true. We have lost the art of communicating with each other in interpersonal ways that do not immediately ignite and fuel the polarization we see.

Interestingly, there is long-standing research on communication that supports this. For example, in the late 1970s, a major UCLA study—the largest of its kind—shed light on what makes communication “stick” or stay with people over time. They looked at conversations, public speaking, different audiences, and so forth.

One of the groundbreaking findings of that study was that very little of what sticks, stays, or moves people has to do with the actual words or arguments being made. What truly accounted for it was the sound of the voice, the facial expressions accompanying the words, the gestures made, how people used space, and the emotional or affective feelings people experienced while listening and observing.

When you consider how important interpersonal dynamics are to communication, you realize that we have lost almost all of them on social media. Everything that happens there is disembodied. It is behind avatars, pseudonyms, reactive, and driven by algorithms. There are so many factors that strip away the interpersonal dynamics that are essential to real communication.

Therefore, it does not surprise me that as the country and culture have become more affectively polarized, people react and respond more emotionally to each other. We have also developed a much more heightened sense of disgust for those with different opinions.

We mistakenly think we are in a debate or disagreement all the time; this is more persistent and more emotional now. It is often easier to debate and disagree without being disrespectful or denigrating when we are interacting in person rather than online.

We have not studied this transition as well as we should. There has been what I would call a revolution—or at least a profound transformation—as we have moved from in-person to online or digital contexts.

That shift has had a perilous impact on our ability to talk to each other, engage in reasoned debate, respect one another’s personhood, and hold contentious or conflicting views within the same space without dismissing, denigrating, disrespecting, or discriminating against people who are different from us—whether that is viewpoint diversity or any other form of diversity.

Blum: One of the last things I want to say is that attention is one of the most important currencies.

Apart from people making substantive news, simply making news often now means doing something that catches much attention. The incentives have shifted: even if you have something important to say, it is very difficult to break through when someone else can say something provocative and attract all the traction.

We see this all the time with our experts. Many people do incredible work in academia and have a lot to say. Still, they struggle to break through the noise created by provocative statements. Even very negative or outrageous things, which in earlier times might have backfired, now create so much conversation and engagement that negative attention becomes a net positive for some individuals.

Donald Trump is one of the best examples of that dynamic. Younger people no longer use television in this difficult and distorted attention economy. They are turning to YouTube, TikTok, and other platforms. Even members of Congress are now often more interested in doing something provocative than engaging with actual substantive policymaking.

The real question is: How do experts go through that environment, especially when people do not want to listen to nuanced analysis? It is a major struggle in today’s media landscape.

McCarthy: Part of the inability—or the loss—of the art of communication is the loss of the art of listening.

In digital spaces, we no longer need to listen to each other. We do not even need to read everything. We can just read a clickbait headline. How many of us have reposted something based solely on the headline—something we have not read?

I know that I have been guilty of that in the past. I do not do it anymore, because people have called me out: “Did you actually read this article?” I have been shamed publicly—and rightly so.

As a Harvard professor with a Ph.D., if I am not reading something carefully, then God help us all! So, good on the people who called me out. It was important and it changed my social media practice.

To Diego’s point, there is also research about our diminishing attention spans and the impact of this cultural transformation. The idea of “too long, didn’t read”—TL; DR—was not something we said back when we sat at a table reading the Sunday New York Times op-ed section.

We did not say “TL;DR” in those days. But now, when people repost an article, they sometimes add “too long, didn’t read” as a signal that it does not matter whether they or anyone else reads it. Yet, they still expect others to be angry or react emotionally.

That is a major cultural shift with the advent of the digital age.

Jacobsen: CBC Radio is a big factor in Canadian life. It receives government funding and, speaking more broadly about North America, is very dear to many Canadians. It has been a staple of Canadian society for several decades.

It is still there—it has not gone anywhere—but it now exists within a much more diffuse media landscape. It remains a very big pillar, but it is now one among many.

As you all know, Marshall McLuhan had a famous phrase at the beginning of his work. There is also the Canadian pianist Glenn Gould—someone very familiar to many—who played a lot of Bach and provided much commentary about media.

One thing Gould noted about music, at least for himself, was that he saw it as creating something he called “electronic wallpaper.” In a broader sense, I think of that as a sort of “2.0” version of McLuhan’s ideas.

However, I believe we live in a “3.0” version today. Gould spoke primarily about music because it was his medium of expression. He once joked that if he had not been a pianist, he would have been a writer; as a pianist, that was how he expressed himself.

In the current context, we now have a multigenerational influence of the internet and, increasingly, social media. We are living in a world where, as you noted earlier, Tim, the news used to be on all the time for you—you curated it more carefully later—but earlier, it was a 24/7 immersion.

So, how can those more activist-oriented regarding factual information—those trying to get people activated—tap into that broader electronic wallpaper? Not just older folks on Meta, but everyone across social media? How can we message more effectively across that landscape?

McCarthy: I need clarification on the question. Are you asking how we can use social media to promote or incorporate other kinds of forms—like music and art—to communicate more effectively? Is that what you are asking?

Jacobsen: That is an interesting angle. Getting more at what David said earlier, where you have this lower information strata that people are primarily engaging with: How do you tap into that strata?

Think of it as “wallpaper”—it is everywhere and multimodal. How do you tap into it effectively? It could involve art, music, and other forms. But the idea is to do it strategically—to have a plan of action, identify specific media, and target them with coherent content for a unified messaging strategy.

McCarthy: Two things are important.

First, Diego will laugh because I talk to him and some of my younger colleagues about this often, about my need for intervention and instruction when it comes to social media communication. As David said, I teach leadership and communication, so you would think I would be approached as an expert in this. Yet when I think about my social media inadequacies, I sometimes feel like, “Help!”

If you are not already on the relevant frequency—whether that is a lower-frequency platform or a different media environment—then if you want to communicate with people who occupy those spaces, you must find a way to connect. That could mean learning how to use the platform yourself, getting help from others, or putting intentional time and effort into understanding how to participate in that space in a meaningful and good-faith way.

People who must lead across generations—such as those running for elected office with diverse stakeholder constituencies—have to do this, and many already are. You cannot run for office today without a social media presence.

What often happens when older candidates run for office—and I know this because I work with many campaigns and politicians—is that they hire teenagers or twenty-somethings. One of my friends worked for a state party organization, and during a campaign that turned out to be very successful statewide, she found a high school student to handle their TikTok strategy.

I will not tell you which state it was, but the point is that you have to find the right people to help you infiltrate the right frequencies.

Second, Diego’s earlier point about academics is very important. We do have expertise. We do research. We write. We publish. We develop scholarly knowledge. But that does not matter if we cannot communicate it to a broader audience.

It all comes down to translation—how you translate what you know into a language that other people will understand. This is a massive challenge, not only for individuals but also for institutions like the Democratic Party.

For example, during the last election cycle, every time someone mentioned how tough the economy was and how people were struggling, Democrats would quote Nobel laureate economists about how “Bidenomics” was working. That did not land with someone who cannot pay rent.

Most Americans have no idea what a Nobel laureate is, much less what an economist does.

Thus, being able to translate knowledge and expertise into everyday human experiences is not just a technological question about which platform to use or what frequency to operate on. It is a human question about connecting real people’s experiences to the information you are trying to share.

That is a huge challenge.

We also know that communication is fundamentally about relationships. If I walk into a room to talk about anything, I want to know who is there, what they might already know or not know, and what they might be curious about about what I am there to discuss.

For example, if I am speaking to a room full of young men who are not party-affiliated, I should know that they are probably listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast. I should probably listen to the latest episode before I walk into that room.

And frankly, not everyone is willing to do that work.

As a matter of practice, I used to watch MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News when I was teaching. I would spend time on each of those channels.

This was more the case when we were living in the days when those kinds of TV shows were really powerful and important. They still are, of course, but their influence has diminished somewhat in the country’s latest political incarnation, especially among younger people.

But I did that because I wanted to know: if I encountered someone who was only watching Fox News, then MSNBC would not help me reach them—and vice versa. If I were only consuming MSNBC, I would not be able to effectively communicate with people watching Fox News or CNN, or listening to talk radio or some particular podcast.

It is incumbent upon those of us who want to communicate across divides to be willing to step into those different media worlds. That requires humility and openness; frankly, we are not currently experiencing an abundance of either in America.

Jacobsen: I talked to some child psychologists for another set of interviews, and you are correct. It starts early.

Grasso: most people are apolitical, Scott, which is hard for many people to realize.

Ultimately, most people consume culture more than they consume politics. However, culture is ultimately downstream from politics.

So, when we are talking about LGBTQ+ issues, for example, culture ultimately sets the tenor—and the United States plays a major role in setting that global cultural tone. People worldwide look to the United States—whether they love it or hate it—because we tend to be where things happen first, and then those developments get exported elsewhere.

With the political changes we are experiencing in the United States, we are only seeing the beginning of a global trend. Other countries will likely experiment with their versions of populism, influenced by what happens here.

People are largely apolitical, and it is hard for many people—even myself—to understand that fully. I am less political than Diego and Tim. But interestingly, in my apolitical stance, I look to them to understand what is going on.

When you are more middle-of-the-road, you need people. And if you are middle-of-the-road and open-minded, you should listen to diverse voices and perspectives to better connect with different communities.

We live in a world where we need coalitions to get anything done. Ideological diversity is normal—and ideological purity is poisonous on both sides.

Bridge-building requires understanding that the masses are largely apolitical and recognizing that people are different from you. You must try to think like them to understand their position truly.

Blum: I want to add to that by sharing a Media Matters study that shows that the right-wing utterly dominates the podcast sphere and the broader online media ecosystems.

One thing we are learning—especially after the last election—is that there are far more right-leaning spaces with different ways of talking and different communication styles, and they are deeply influential. According to the Media Matters study, nine of the ten online shows with the largest followings were right-leaning.

This dominance was not accidental—a coordinated strategy that paid off. At the same time, many left-leaning activists largely ignored the growing importance of podcasts, YouTube channels, and other emerging platforms.

It was a huge missed opportunity, and it was too late by the time they realized it. These spaces had already become major avenues through which people received information.

One of the key lessons from this is that when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues—where so much misinformation and harmful myths are spreading—there are huge, largely unregulated spaces where disinformation circulates freely.

If activists do not meet people in those spaces, they will be completely dominated by those spreading myths and misinformation. It is critical to engage in those ecosystems before they become entrenched.

Another issue is that activists, particularly in the LGBTQ+ space and within the Democratic coalition, have been slow to develop catchy, culture-driven messaging. They often over-anchor on expertise—which is important—but it does not always resonate with the broader public.

The challenge is to develop effective communication and attention strategies while maintaining journalistic integrity, a commitment to truth, and factual accuracy. Different standards operate on each side, but breaking through remains as important and difficult.

Grasso: Really interesting study, Diego. Thank you.

McCarthy: It is interesting.

Getting back to the point I was making about affective polarization—this idea that we are experiencing increasing feelings of disgust toward people with different experiences, identities, and viewpoints than we do—this has been well-documented.

The Pew Research Center has done a series of longitudinal studies on this, and we know it is happening. It is one of the key dimensions of polarization within the United States, particularly in our politics.

When you think about how best to message—whether that means engaging on lower frequencies, using the platforms others are using, listening to the media they consume, or reading what they read—all of these communication strategies presume a fundamental acknowledgment of the humanity of the various sides involved in these issues.

And I want to be very clear about this: one of the things happening right now is the dehumanization of certain groups of people. We see it particularly with the LGBTQ+ community and especially the transgender community.

There has been recycling and amplification of ancient tropes—accusations of pedophilia, child abuse, and other baseless claims—designed specifically to serve a dehumanization project. Because if you deny a group’s humanity, it becomes much easier to deny them rights and resources and strip away their dignity.

Suppose we have a good-faith conversation about how the LGBTQ+ community should better message to broader groups in society. In that case, we first need to ask a basic question: Are the people we are trying to reach willing to acknowledge that LGBTQ+ people are human and deserving of human rights?

If the answer is “no,” then we should not waste our time messaging to them. I want to be clear about that. I am not interested in spending what precious time I have left on this earth trying to message to people who fundamentally deny the humanity of our community. That principle extends to all communities that face discrimination and are targeted with ancient stereotypes and persistent prejudices.

It makes sense to clarify that. In politics and polling, we often talk about the “movable middle”—the people who are not yet firmly decided but are willing to listen, willing to hear new information, and can potentially be persuaded.

But again, that presumes a good-faith engagement around mutual humanity. What we are seeing right now in this intensely polarized culture—not just within politics but across society—is a crisis of dehumanization.

While the right and conservatives are certainly not the only ones who engage in dehumanization, when it comes specifically to LGBTQ+ people, conservatives and the political right are disproportionately represented in advancing that dehumanization project.

Blum: I want to end with this point.

There is a very effective campaign underway to dehumanize LGBTQ+ people, especially trans people, by pushing the false message that “real trans people do not exist.”

Of course, that is complete nonsense. We have had trans people throughout recorded history. For example, Roman Emperor Elagabalus is often cited as someone who would today be understood as expressing gender variance. Long before we even had modern language to describe trans identities, people were living experiences consistent with what we now recognize as trans.

Over time, there has been an attempt to reframe trans identity as an “ideology” rather than as an aspect of human diversity and existence.

This rhetorical shift is not accidental. It is designed to strip away rights and recognition. It is a deliberate project of erasure and dehumanization.

The more dehumanized a group becomes, the easier it is to enact increasingly harsh policies against them. That, in turn, galvanizes political support around cruelty, which historically has led to some of humanity’s worst atrocities.

We have to be extremely vigilant because that process is actively underway right now against trans people.

Jacobsen: If we are to think about this in constructive terms, Where do you most effectively meet people regarding their attention, particularly considering what Diego mentioned about the attention economy? Furthermore, once you find those pain points, how do you most effectively engage them?

Grasso: We have to talk to people in a way that makes sense to them.

We live in a fragmented world, separated into tribes based on ideology, geography, class, and more. People may say similar things but use very different language depending on their origins.

We need to meet people where they are, using ways of communicating that feel natural and understandable to them.

People often do not understand the practical implications of policies in their everyday lives. Intellectuals sometimes talk in terms that even I find hard to relate to. The real questions for everyday people are: “How does this affect my life? How is this important to me?” Often, the narratives we hear seem abstract or irrelevant.

We need to break it down so people can see how they are part of the broader world and how they stand to gain or lose depending on which policies are adopted. It is not just about government, either. We often overestimate the role of government when the private sector, the public sector, and academia—all institutions—need to communicate better with regular people.

They need to demonstrate their value propositions, which are how they help people live better, happier, healthier lives.

Jacobsen: You remind me of an individual who has since passed away. When she died, she was in her 90s. I had the privilege of conducting one of her last interviews. She was the Communications Director for Atheists for Human Rights, and we did a few interviews together. 

One thing she noted—this was related to reproductive healthcare and abortion—was making issues personally relevant to the individual. Based on many of the harder years in that space (long before Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022), her analysis focused on making people understand the personal stakes involved.

When I interviewed her, she pointed out that you must make it personally impactful, particularly to men. Because in cases of pregnancy, there are two people involved, the conversation has often been one-sided, without involving a full, bidirectional conversation about responsibility and accountability. For 50 years, the conversation has often been one-sided.

Her point was that you have to make men realize that they could be liable for child support payments for 18 years if they father a child. You must make the issue grounded in something personally costly so they understand why it matters to them.

That would be an example of negative framing. But you can do the same with positive messaging: for example, pointing out that someone probably has a cousin, a friend, or a family member who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. You make it personal—an investment in the lives of people they know and care about.

Is that style of personal messaging—what Maria Lena Castle emphasized—effective in your experience?

Grasso: It has always been effective.

It goes back to what Tim said earlier: talking to people one-on-one is a completely different experience.

Even with the limited amount of person-to-person interaction we still have daily, it is crucial to represent our communities, humanize ourselves, and remind people that we are not some invisible enemy.

We are their neighbours. We are their children. We are their family. That has always been the most effective feature of the gay rights movement. You cannot “other” people when they are embedded in your everyday life.

The same principle applies to any bridge-building space. When trying to appeal to a population that does not think or look like you—or whatever the difference—the best strategy is re-humanization.

We are discussing dehumanization, but the fight against it must involve re-humanizing people.

Jacobsen: That reminds me of one other point. There was an American comedian who, in the early days of the web, had a series called Web Redemption on a show called Tosh.0—the comedian Daniel Tosh.

Daniel Tosh, an American comedian, was very laissez-faire in his use of words, concepts, and language—often intentionally offensive. He had a segment called Web Redemption on his show Tosh.0, where people who had embarrassing or viral moments online would get a chance to “redeem” themselves in a humorous way.

Similarly, thinking about LGBTQIA+ topics and public framing, there was a viral moment involving Louis Otieno, a former Kenyan news anchor.

In one particular interview that became internationally famous, Otieno asked the guest bluntly, “Why are you gay?” and then followed it up with, “You are gay. You are transgender, so you are gay.” It became a widely circulated clip.

Interestingly, there was also an informal kind of “web redemption” for Otieno. He later appeared in different contexts, doing light-hearted takes on the original viral moment.

This helped humanize him. He was no longer just a one-dimensional caricature of a news anchor who opened interviews with inflammatory questions. It brought humour and a sense of humanity to the whole thing.

Grasso: We have all seen that clip, Scott [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing] So Louis Otieno essentially had an international version of web redemption.

There are other examples, though I cannot think of them off my head. But moments like that—where the original moment and the later humanization touch people—show the power of humour.

Is there room for something similar in messaging around serious issues? Something that acknowledges the gravity of the issues—legal and individual impacts on people’s lives—but does so in a way that is also charming and humanizing?

Grasso: As much as you can criticize me for my love-hate relationship with social media, one thing about it is that it is really funny.

Social media makes us laugh. Even if I am busy, if I spend five minutes watching little reels that my friends send me, I laugh. Humour brings levity to high-stakes situations.

For activism, even though the issues are serious, humour helps decrease the temperature. Humour resonates with a lot more people because people love to laugh. Sometimes, we all take life—and ourselves—too seriously. Humour is a greatvehicle for social change.

Jacobsen: I interviewed the late Paul Krassner, the founder of The Realist magazine, once.

At the end of the interview, I asked him for advice for young people. His response was very terse—maybe even one sentence—and it was to the effect of: “Do not take yourself as seriously as your causes.”

Krassner emerged from a prime era of in-person activism in American life through literature, comedy, and imagery featuring figures like Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and others. Does that advice still hold today?

Grasso: “Do not take yourself too seriously” holds. I do not know if that would go over well with some of my colleagues—they are very serious!—so I might hesitate to say it out loud.

But it is true. Do you need anything else from me?

Jacobsen: Favorite quote?

Grasso: Favorite quote? That is a hard one. I am not a “quote person.” I have no idea. I will have to think about it. I will prepare one for next time! Thank you for making me do this.

Jacobsen: You are welcome. Good luck with your work. 

Grasso: No problem. Let me know if you need anything, Scott.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you. Bye-bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.