"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[bennyboy]

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?