(November 11, 2017 at 1:50 pm)shadow Wrote: I've noticed terms like 'republicunt' being throw around quite a lot on this forum, and I'm wondering what this accomplishes. Any time derogatory terms like this are used, it makes the argument ad-hominem instead of issue based, and I'm unlikely to find the point being made persuasive even if I'd normally agree with it. In fact, it almost discredits the source in my eyes because I see them as biased.

Even if you disagree with something or someone entirely, name-calling seems counterproductive, because it alienates the parties that you are discussing. It serves to build echo-chambers, and it never makes you more likely to hear a rational response.

Am I missing something? Is there any benefit to this style of discussion?

I simply chalk it up to childishness.

I do not vote in US elections. So I leave yall to it. Portuguese are worried about fire casualties and the drought. Its serious. Its november and there should be raining.

(November 12, 2017 at 1:06 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 11, 2017 at 1:50 pm)shadow Wrote: I've noticed terms like 'republicunt' being throw around quite a lot on this forum, and I'm wondering what this accomplishes. Any time derogatory terms like this are used, it makes the argument ad-hominem instead of issue based, and I'm unlikely to find the point being made persuasive even if I'd normally agree with it. In fact, it almost discredits the source in my eyes because I see them as biased.

Even if you disagree with something or someone entirely, name-calling seems counterproductive, because it alienates the parties that you are discussing. It serves to build echo-chambers, and it never makes you more likely to hear a rational response.

Am I missing something? Is there any benefit to this style of discussion?

I simply chalk it up to childishness.

I agree. I have no problem with the use of the insults cunt, faggot, gay, retard, slow, blind, stupid, deaf, and so on, and to the people that are hurt by reading these words, maybe the internet is just not the place for you, but when someone is using those terms multiple times a day, they come off like an 8 year old who just learned those swear words and thinks they're being oh so cool by cursing so much.

That, and I also don't agree with just labeling all Republicans as cunts. Republican politicians? Sure, but that goes for the Dem politicians as well, and the independent ones, but Minimalist doesn't just hate the politicians. He has admitted to hating all Republicans.

(November 12, 2017 at 2:11 pm)FFaith Wrote:

(November 12, 2017 at 1:06 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I simply chalk it up to childishness.

I agree. I have no problem with the use of the insults cunt, faggot, gay, retard, slow, blind, stupid, deaf, and so on, and to the people that are hurt by reading these words, maybe the internet is just not the place for you, but when someone is using those terms multiple times a day, they come off like an 8 year old who just learned those swear words and thinks they're being oh so cool by cursing so much.

That, and I also don't agree with just labeling all Republicans as cunts. Republican politicians? Sure, but that goes for the Dem politicians as well, and the independent ones, but Minimalist doesn't just hate the politicians. He has admitted to hating all Republicans.

The trouble is by being republican they sign up for certain things. its like being a member of the Klu Klux Klan.
Sure they may think themselves as nice and all but they are still members of the Klu Klux Klan.
The republican party of today has been on a right wing trajectory for a while now and by being a "republican" you identify with policies that Goebels would find a bit much.
It bears little resemblance to the party even of Reagan which was pretty right wing compared to UK politics then and now.

(November 12, 2017 at 2:16 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(November 12, 2017 at 2:11 pm)FFaith Wrote: I agree. I have no problem with the use of the insults cunt, faggot, gay, retard, slow, blind, stupid, deaf, and so on, and to the people that are hurt by reading these words, maybe the internet is just not the place for you, but when someone is using those terms multiple times a day, they come off like an 8 year old who just learned those swear words and thinks they're being oh so cool by cursing so much.

That, and I also don't agree with just labeling all Republicans as cunts. Republican politicians? Sure, but that goes for the Dem politicians as well, and the independent ones, but Minimalist doesn't just hate the politicians. He has admitted to hating all Republicans.

The trouble is by being republican they sign up for certain things. its like being a member of the Klu Klux Klan.
Sure they may think themselves as nice and all but they are still members of the Klu Klux Klan.
The republican party of today has been on a right wing trajectory for a while now and by being a "republican" you identify with policies that Goebels would find a bit much.
It bears little resemblance to the party even of Reagan which was pretty right wing compared to UK politics then and now.

Should Neo start posting about snowflakes again?

---

(November 12, 2017 at 2:11 pm)FFaith Wrote:

(November 12, 2017 at 1:06 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I simply chalk it up to childishness.

I agree. I have no problem with the use of the insults cunt, faggot, gay, retard, slow, blind, stupid, deaf, and so on, and to the people that are hurt by reading these words, maybe the internet is just not the place for you, but when someone is using those terms multiple times a day, they come off like an 8 year old who just learned those swear words and thinks they're being oh so cool by cursing so much.

That, and I also don't agree with just labeling all Republicans as cunts. Republican politicians? Sure, but that goes for the Dem politicians as well, and the independent ones, but Minimalist doesn't just hate the politicians. He has admitted to hating all Republicans.

I'd agree.... every now and then, we misspeak, or emotions get the best of us, and we say something that we probably shouldn't.  I don't think we need to be so sensitive, that one instance sets us off.  I would also agree, that this pattern is that of an eight year old though (I was probably acutally thinking young teenager.... not to quibble).  I think that if you can get more discussion out of them, that it normally shows to be correct as far as mental capabilities.

(November 11, 2017 at 1:50 pm)shadow Wrote: I've noticed terms like 'republicunt' being throw around quite a lot on this forum, and I'm wondering what this accomplishes. Any time derogatory terms like this are used, it makes the argument ad-hominem instead of issue based, and I'm unlikely to find the point being made persuasive even if I'd normally agree with it. In fact, it almost discredits the source in my eyes because I see them as biased.

Even if you disagree with something or someone entirely, name-calling seems counterproductive, because it alienates the parties that you are discussing. It serves to build echo-chambers, and it never makes you more likely to hear a rational response.

Am I missing something? Is there any benefit to this style of discussion?

The benefit is to point  out that in order to be a Republican, you also have to be a cunt.  A non-cunt would not choose to be a Republican, because a non-cunt wouldn't embrace a party that so blatantly fucks with the rights of the working class, cares so very little about the environment, or (and this is important) put forward an orangutan as candidate for president of the United States.

As for Christard-- this is a combination of "Christian" and "retard," the latter being a derogatory term for a particularly stupid person.  In order to believe the childish stories found in the Bible, one must be deliberately ignorant of almost everything we've actually learned about reality, and then willfully spread this ignorance to family members or the community in which they live.


I kind of get what you're saying though.  My aunt uses a special tone of voice with my cousin, because he's autistic.  Should we use soothing, cooing tones with Republicans and Christians, too, to try and keep them from going full-tilt and doing even more damage than they already have?

(November 12, 2017 at 2:16 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(November 12, 2017 at 2:11 pm)FFaith Wrote: I agree. I have no problem with the use of the insults cunt, faggot, gay, retard, slow, blind, stupid, deaf, and so on, and to the people that are hurt by reading these words, maybe the internet is just not the place for you, but when someone is using those terms multiple times a day, they come off like an 8 year old who just learned those swear words and thinks they're being oh so cool by cursing so much.

That, and I also don't agree with just labeling all Republicans as cunts. Republican politicians? Sure, but that goes for the Dem politicians as well, and the independent ones, but Minimalist doesn't just hate the politicians. He has admitted to hating all Republicans.

The trouble is by being republican they sign up for certain things. its like being a member of the Klu Klux Klan.
Sure they may think themselves as nice and all but they are still members of the Klu Klux Klan.
The republican party of today has been on a right wing trajectory for a while now and by being a "republican" you identify with policies that Goebels would find a bit much.
It bears little resemblance to the party even of Reagan which was pretty right wing compared to UK politics then and now.

You don't sign up for anything by being republican other than being able to vote in republican primaries.  There are a limited number of political options, all with significant shortcomings.  Because of the way candidates are nominated, it is often impractical to be labeled an independent.  So republican or democrat are usually it.  

Similarly, when you are faced with two candidates, voting for one doesn't endorse everything that candidate did.  It is only picking that person over the alternative.  Often weighing a number of pluses and negatives.  Again, the alternative of just nobody voting isn't practical.

Contrast with joining the Klu Klux Klan, you can just not join them.  With that, because there's no need to join the KKK, there is likely a stronger endorsement of the behaviors of the KKK.

(November 11, 2017 at 6:34 pm)wallym Wrote:

(November 11, 2017 at 5:45 pm)Hammy Wrote: I could never be someone who believed in bad words. Words don't have magical powers. It's entirely the meaning behind them that matters... and if when you say "retard" you don't mean "mentally disabled person", then you're not insulting the mentally disabled. It's very much like the South Park episode where annoyingly obnoxious motorcyclists are refereed to as "fags" but absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality is intended:

Exactly.  When a southerner displays the confederate flag, black people feeling offended are just being irrational.  The only relevant thing is what the white guy with it painted on his pickup truck intends for it to mean.

Worst analogy ever.

(November 11, 2017 at 6:45 pm)shadow Wrote:

(November 11, 2017 at 5:45 pm)Hammy Wrote: I could never be someone who believed in bad words. Words don't have magical powers. It's entirely the meaning behind them that matters... and if when you say "retard" you don't mean "mentally disabled person", then you're not insulting the mentally disabled. It's very much like the South Park episode where annoyingly obnoxious motorcyclists are refereed to as "fags" but absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality is intended:

Words do have connotations attached to them, though. Why choose a word that is commonly used to offend people if you don't want to offend people? There are enough words in the world that you can surely come up with a better one.

And a word like 'republicunt' or 'libtard'... yeah, no, that's not a word without meaning attached. The word is altered to infuse a meaning, and designed to offend.

In my experience when people use words like that their primary intention is to speak their mind brutally, not to be manipulative and provocative for the sake of being manipulative and provocative. The point is that the truth is more important than being effective or inoffensive. I agree it's unhelpful because it's possible to speak truthfully at the same time as being effective and inoffensive. But the idea is to call a spade a spade instead of sugarcoating things. It's about brutal honesty regardless of offense. It's not about lying offensively. I do think people are usually speaking their mind when they say offensive words. Some people are cunts. The word 'republicunt' is intended to refer to the fact that republicans are, generally speaking, cunts. That's intended to be a true statement regardless of how offensive it is.

It's usually the people who sugarcoat things that are being manipulative or disingenuous. The sort of people who are sanctimonious. Those sorts. People who speak brutally are usually being honest. The only people who are brutal or offensive intentionally to cause trouble are usually either internet trolls, outright bullies, or SJWs/alt-right. The point of lies and manipulation is generally to sugarcoat or avoid reality for oneself and/or one's allies. That's very different to brutal honesty.

Do you ever worry that you're mental illnesses, and need to maintain/rationalize the weird self-image you're trying to project cuts whatever intelligence you may have off at the knees? You've completely missed the most important aspect of the discussion while you were busy with the bullshit of painting yourself as some unfiltered champion of truth.

(November 12, 2017 at 5:25 pm)wallym Wrote:

(November 12, 2017 at 2:16 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The trouble is by being republican they sign up for certain things. its like being a member of the Klu Klux Klan.
Sure they may think themselves as nice and all but they are still members of the Klu Klux Klan.
The republican party of today has been on a right wing trajectory for a while now and by being a "republican" you identify with policies that Goebels would find a bit much.
It bears little resemblance to the party even of Reagan which was pretty right wing compared to UK politics then and now.

You don't sign up for anything by being republican other than being able to vote in republican primaries.  There are a limited number of political options, all with significant shortcomings.  Because of the way candidates are nominated, it is often impractical to be labeled an independent.  So republican or democrat are usually it.  

Similarly, when you are faced with two candidates, voting for one doesn't endorse everything that candidate did.  It is only picking that person over the alternative.  Often weighing a number of pluses and negatives.  Again, the alternative of just nobody voting isn't practical.

Contrast with joining the Klu Klux Klan, you can just not join them.  With that, because there's no need to join the KKK, there is likely a stronger endorsement of the behaviors of the KKK.

You need to start a campaign to get your state to allow independents to vote in the Democratic and Republican primaries. That opens all the parties as relevant choices.