(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?
As far as I can tell, "republicunt" is bandied about on AF by Minimalist - perhaps your question would be better answered by Min.
But as Vors alluded to - all sides are guilty of insults. Terms like feminazi, libtards, cucks, etc make me roll my eyes too.
There's a reason why we have the saying "politics and religion shouldn't be discussed in mixed company". People can't help themselves when these topics come up and thus often avoid these discussions irl.
-Teresa
.
