"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm not talking about the OP position.  I'm talking about the other discussion you engaged in about using phrases that are the primary slur to dehumanize various subgroups, and whether or not that's okay.  Retard, Faggot, Cunt, etc...  

You can say "I called a person retarded, but I didn't mean intellectually disabled" so the mentally disabled population shouldn't take offense.  Even though the reason you using retarded is considered an insult at all, is because it's association with dehumanizing the mentally disabled.  

If I put the confederate flag on top of my car's roof because I like the Dukes of Hazard, it's absurd to think because my intent is to show I'm a fan of a tv show, black people getting offended because I'm displaying a symbol under which their ancestors were enslaved is now moot?  It's just a laughable level of self-absorption to come to that conclusion.

--

Now to answer my guess at "Why?" that Shadow asked.  Your personality is offputting.  But if you frame calling people Cunts as a virtue, as it's part of your noble goal to unabashedly present the truth, then who's fault is it that people find you offputting?  You're really a victim to your own lofty principles in that scenario.  Others are just too weak and lack the backbone to call a spade a spade, as you say.  If my brain were trying to spin reality to help me cope, I'd hope it could come up with something as good as that.

The problem with the story is that it invests you pretty heavily in the conclusion calling people cunts and retarded is a noble action.  And that's where I think you're ability to look at things objectively gets 'cut off at the knees.'  You can't be the tortured hero if you're causing unnecessary harm to large groups of innocent people because it's super important you call someone a Cunt instead of a Jerk.  You could have said "Fuck them.  I don't care if the intellectually disabled are offended." but that doesn't fit the narrative.  Instead you went with "They shouldn't be offended."  Once again, your alleged flaw is not a flaw at all, and actually the fault of someone else's shortcoming.  In this case their taking offense when they shouldn't.

Obviously, this is all wild and mostly unfounded guessing.  But I find this sort of thing very interesting.

You fail to recognize the fact the word 'retarded' has multiple meanings and isn't merely a slur. It is not the case with words like 'nigger'.

Your analogies are retarded, for instance.

what other meaning of retarded is there though?

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

My bold.

This part I bolded is utter horseshit too by the way. The fact I'm championing myself as someone who is brutally honest was clearly very on topic because my entire point is that honesty and speaking ones mind is almost always the intention when using brutal words, and that is very on topic. I'd rather someone use a word like 'replublicunt' and mean it than someone sugarcoat things and say shit they don't mean out of concern about being 'unhelpful' or 'inoffensive' . . . confusing both themselves and everyone else in the process.

There are some that are happily misunderstood. And they tend to be the same people that are happy to misrepresent others while criticizing tone more than their substance

Yes, of course, to have both a positive and helpful tone and to speak honestly is ideal. But I'd pick someone who is brutally honest and pisses people off over a well mannered bullshitter any day. I'd much rather continue to speak my mind, however anti-social it's considered, than speak like a fucking spin-doctoring politican. The worst part about politics is when people start taking it as so paramount in itself that they forget that the important thing about politics is what the politics are supposed to stand for, and putting so-called 'helpful' policies themselves above truth is what's fucking wrong with the world today. This is how this post-truth bullshit starts. People forget that at the end of the day reality has to come before poltics otherwise you'll never be able to tell the good policies from the bad. It's often said that if something is worth doing it's worth doing well. . . but it's also true that if it's not worth doing well it's not worth doing at all. A lot of people seem to think it's okay to be really good at something even when that something is something that causes a lot of harm or at the very least confuses a fuck ton of people. Fuck so-called 'helpful' policies if they don't put speaking the truth first. Honesty is said to be the best policy for a reason . . . it's ultimately the policy that all other policies depend upon. If someone is dishonest to themselves or others, or in other words, bullshiting - then their 'policies' can't be trusted. At least when someone calls someone a 'cunt' they clearly aren't doing it to evade certain realities because it might upset people.

So yeah, I'd rather speak my mind than speak like a politician.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some people are short; some people are tall. Some people are thin; some people are fat. These are simply descriptive terms; however, because fat people feel (with some justification) stigmatized by their weight and girth, they take offense to being called fat. And it certainly doesn't help when people use 'fat' as an insult. Personally, I find terms like 'mentally challenged' and 'differently-abled' to be awkward. Retard could be used objectively, as could terms like 'disabled', 'lame', or even 'crippled'. But it is not. It is being used as a comparison between a person of sound mind acting stupidly and people with Downs Syndrome, essentially borrowing the stigma attached to Downs to insult someone.

At the same time, this is always a moving target. Any group that feels unfairly stigmatized will eventually find offense in whatever term is used to describe them. There really isn't any linguistic difference between calling someone a colored person versus calling him a person of color. And yet, the former was once fine but is now considered a slur while the second an accepted description...for now at least.

[Edwardo Piet]

Your personality is offputting. 

Not as offputting as yours. You do appear to be full of shit. I don't think you're a cunt but the fact you define me as offputting because I don't avoid speaking my mind is very offputting to me.

Besides, my personality is my best feature . . . I haven't got much else going for me.

The fact you find the way I speak offputting and therefore you conclude that my personality is offputting . . . is what I find especially offputting about you as a person right now. As if the way I am speaking my mind on this thread sums up my 'personality'.

I'm sure there's more to your personality than appearing to be disingenuous and anti-honesty, and having problems with people speak their mind because you don't like certain offensive words. I'm sure there's more to your personality than bad analogies and silly straw men. But, no, my personality is not offputting. Anybody who actually gets to know me tends to think I'm a nice guy. I don't always have to come across as polite to have a nice personality. I'm going to come across as disagreeable when I'm being blunt and when I'm standing up for my opinion that it's okay to use nasty words and mean them and it's also okay to say them when you think them rather than trade them for words that sugarcoat what you actually mean.

[shadow]

Why?

Because there's no point in being effective or inoffensive if what you're saying is bullshit.

There's a difference between bullshit and discretion. Bullshit hijaks the principle of your message, whereas discretion is about conveying it an appropriate matter for the audience you are addressing. We 'format' our messages all the time: if a prof asks for a 1500 word essay, I'll give them that many words even if I had 3000 words to say. If I'm getting a passport photo taken, I won't smile even if I usually like to smile. If I'm trying to explain something to my 4 year old cousin, it will be in a different manner than if I'm trying to explain something to a classmate.

These are very simple examples, but the more complex a task you are trying to accomplish the more this applies. If I'm trying to get a job, I may be perfectly qualified and honest but I'm not going to say the same things in the job interview that I would chatting with a friend - that's not what the HR person wants to hear about. Similarly, if I'm trying to broach a sensitive topic like politics with someone who I disagree with, finding common ground first can open the door to further discussion. Alienating them ends the conversation. Words are powerful, and if you imagine what your words will accomplish before you use them you will create a lot more opportunities.

It's not being dishonest - it's saying the right things at the right time. I do not lie (except in mafia of course ) but I do choose my words carefully.

---

I've always thought there is a purpose to the overuse of insults towards conservatives here, to make atheist forums an unfriendly place towards them as possible.

That is quite possible - I've observed that this is one of the instrumental uses of insults.

If that's the case I'm disappointed with AF, because I want to talk to conservatives if they are willing. If we're going to be anything better than an echo chamber, we have to. From my experience it is so powerful to understand the people who you disagree with - to know how they think, to understand their paradigm and see what it's missing. Especially when you are disagreeing with a very powerful force, you can't pretend that they aren't there, or you will continually lose and not know why.

And I think we're rationally right by so much as atheists that there's no reason to try to keep conservatives out. Chasing away dissenters is something you have reason to do when you're a bully trying to look tough, not when you can so easily defend your view rationally and objectively.

[downbeatplumb]

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?

Tis the season.
I for one had to wear a warm hat and gloves this morning.

[Joods]

What the bloody hell are you babbling on about? Disagreeing with the opinion of the OP isn't missing the point of the discussion. And who says I have a mental illness?

---

Because there's no point in being effective or inoffensive if what you're saying is bullshit.

I'm not talking about the OP position.  I'm talking about the other discussion you engaged in about using phrases that are the primary slur to dehumanize various subgroups, and whether or not that's okay.  Retard, Faggot, Cunt, etc...  

You can say "I called a person retarded, but I didn't mean intellectually disabled" so the mentally disabled population shouldn't take offense.  Even though the reason you using retarded is considered an insult at all, is because it's association with dehumanizing the mentally disabled.  

If I put the confederate flag on top of my car's roof because I like the Dukes of Hazard, it's absurd to think because my intent is to show I'm a fan of a tv show, black people getting offended because I'm displaying a symbol under which their ancestors were enslaved is now moot?  It's just a laughable level of self-absorption to come to that conclusion.

--

Now to answer my guess at "Why?" that Shadow asked.  Your personality is offputting.  But if you frame calling people Cunts as a virtue, as it's part of your noble goal to unabashedly present the truth, then who's fault is it that people find you offputting?  You're really a victim to your own lofty principles in that scenario.  Others are just too weak and lack the backbone to call a spade a spade, as you say.  If my brain were trying to spin reality to help me cope, I'd hope it could come up with something as good as that.

The problem with the story is that it invests you pretty heavily in the conclusion calling people cunts and retarded is a noble action.  And that's where I think you're ability to look at things objectively gets 'cut off at the knees.'  You can't be the tortured hero if you're causing unnecessary harm to large groups of innocent people because it's super important you call someone a Cunt instead of a Jerk.  You could have said "Fuck them.  I don't care if the intellectually disabled are offended." but that doesn't fit the narrative.  Instead you went with "They shouldn't be offended."  Once again, your alleged flaw is not a flaw at all, and actually the fault of someone else's shortcoming.  In this case their taking offense when they shouldn't.

Obviously, this is all wild and mostly unfounded guessing.  But I find this sort of thing very interesting.

I've actually been bold enough to call a spade a spade before where he's concerned but you know... instead of dealing with the reality of the situation, there was blameshifting and denial all the way around. So much for that honesty, right? 

[shadow]

So.... Min walks into a bar and sits next to a catholic conservative republican ex-priest and former CEO police officer.  

What happens next?

Someone get Tarantino in here! This is a violent action movie with witty dialogue in the making.

[Joods]

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.

My bold.

This part I bolded is utter horseshit too by the way. The fact I'm championing myself as someone who is brutally honest was clearly very on topic because my entire point is that honesty and speaking ones mind is almost always the intention when using brutal words, and that is very on topic. I'd rather someone use a word like 'replublicunt' and mean it than someone sugarcoat things and say shit they don't mean out of concern about being 'unhelpful' or 'inoffensive' . . . confusing both themselves and everyone else in the process.

There are some that are happily misunderstood. And they tend to be the same people that are happy to misrepresent others while criticizing tone more than their substance

---

Yes, of course, to have both a positive and helpful tone and to speak honestly is ideal. But I'd pick someone who is brutally honest and pisses people off over a well mannered bullshitter any day. I'd much rather continue to speak my mind, however anti-social it's considered, than speak like a fucking spin-doctoring politican. The worst part about politics is when people start taking it as so paramount in itself that they forget that the important thing about politics is what the politics are supposed to stand for, and putting so-called 'helpful' policies themselves above truth is what's fucking wrong with the world today. This is how this post-truth bullshit starts. People forget that at the end of the day reality has to come before poltics otherwise you'll never be able to tell the good policies from the bad. It's often said that if something is worth doing it's worth doing well. . . but it's also true that if it's not worth doing well it's not worth doing at all. A lot of people seem to think it's okay to be really good at something even when that something is something that causes a lot of harm or at the very least confuses a fuck ton of people. Fuck so-called 'helpful' policies if they don't put speaking the truth first. Honesty is said to be the best policy for a reason  . . . it's ultimately the policy that all other policies depend upon. If someone is dishonest to themselves or others, or in other words, bullshiting - then their 'policies' can't be trusted. At least when someone calls someone a 'cunt' they clearly aren't doing it to evade certain realities because it might upset people.

So yeah, I'd rather speak my mind than speak like a politician.

---

Your post reeks of dishonesty Ham. I'm sorry, but maybe your other friends here don't want to bruise your ego, but perhaps it needs to be bruised in order for you to see yourself truthfully. Anyone who disagrees with you about anything, is met with some sort of word salad and claims that they are full of shit, while anyone who agrees with you is given lavish praise, almost to the point that you look like you're kissing their ass over it.  

You say you don't want things sugar coated for you and you want people to be honest with you, but when their honest opinions are not favorable towards you, you go on these rants that are nothing more than text walls filled with diatribes about the other person's faults instead of addressing your own faults. You fail to address any of the honest statements being said to you. Instead you flip the script to suit your own agenda. And when called out on it - you throw out more denial. I think it's sad that any of this has to happen. What's even sadder is that now we have taken this thread and derailed it so that the focus in now on you instead of the actual topic.

[henryp]

I'm not talking about the OP position.  I'm talking about the other discussion you engaged in about using phrases that are the primary slur to dehumanize various subgroups, and whether or not that's okay.  Retard, Faggot, Cunt, etc...  

You can say "I called a person retarded, but I didn't mean intellectually disabled" so the mentally disabled population shouldn't take offense.  Even though the reason you using retarded is considered an insult at all, is because it's association with dehumanizing the mentally disabled.  

If I put the confederate flag on top of my car's roof because I like the Dukes of Hazard, it's absurd to think because my intent is to show I'm a fan of a tv show, black people getting offended because I'm displaying a symbol under which their ancestors were enslaved is now moot?  It's just a laughable level of self-absorption to come to that conclusion.

--

Now to answer my guess at "Why?" that Shadow asked.  Your personality is offputting.  But if you frame calling people Cunts as a virtue, as it's part of your noble goal to unabashedly present the truth, then who's fault is it that people find you offputting?  You're really a victim to your own lofty principles in that scenario.  Others are just too weak and lack the backbone to call a spade a spade, as you say.  If my brain were trying to spin reality to help me cope, I'd hope it could come up with something as good as that.

The problem with the story is that it invests you pretty heavily in the conclusion calling people cunts and retarded is a noble action.  And that's where I think you're ability to look at things objectively gets 'cut off at the knees.'  You can't be the tortured hero if you're causing unnecessary harm to large groups of innocent people because it's super important you call someone a Cunt instead of a Jerk.  You could have said "Fuck them.  I don't care if the intellectually disabled are offended." but that doesn't fit the narrative.  Instead you went with "They shouldn't be offended."  Once again, your alleged flaw is not a flaw at all, and actually the fault of someone else's shortcoming.  In this case their taking offense when they shouldn't.

Obviously, this is all wild and mostly unfounded guessing.  But I find this sort of thing very interesting.

You fail to recognize the fact the word 'retarded' has multiple meanings and isn't merely a slur. It is not the case with words like 'nigger'.

Your analogies are retarded, for instance.

And I am not saying you are talking about the OP position. Although you should be because it's the topic. And I was talking about the OP position that I disagreed with when I listed the words that I have no problem with using in what your post is responding to. You do appear to be disingenuous as fuck with a shady agenda, and the fact you also appear to be the type that wants a safe space and thinks it's a good idea to sugarcoat things or that it means you're bigoted if you use certain words, all falls rather in line with that, IMO.

And Lomd is right, using strong words is more of a sign of passion than anything, generally.

Like I said, when people say these things it's usually because they genuinely think these things . . . it's being brutally honest, not being anti-discussion. It's those that seem to think that every opinion has to have an ulterior motive aside from speaking one's mind that I personally find rather questionable.

People find multiple meanings for lots of things.  I can wear a shirt with a big ole swastika on it, and tell people it's okay, because it's a 5000 year old symbol and I'm not intending it to represent the nazi germany swastika.  Same with the confederate flag.  But that would be deliberately obtuse.

I am curious what you think my agenda is.  This discussion isn't of much importance.  Just a bit of jibber jabber to pass the time.  

As for safe space and such.  People can say what they want.  I used to say retard/faggot years ago.  But it became clear that groups that have had a rough go found it hurtful, so I stopped.  Because it costs me literally nothing.  So the choice is to give up something of no value or continue to cause harm to people unnecessarily.

I don't think most people are being bigoted.  I think they're just self-centered and delusional.  I do like seeing how people rationalize that, though.