(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?
Terms like those are an expression of passion. They are hurtful and do bring suspicion of bias, but that does not mean that there are better alternatives (although it is always meritory to pursue building such alternatives).
They do not, however, characterize ad hominem, unless they refer to specific people. Groups with specific ideologies can be and routinely are targets of suspicion and disdain. That is not automatically unfair, but instead grounds to consider what those groups pursue and which ideologies they preach.
The usage of such terms does in fact alienate their targets. Often enough that is a major component of the goal, even as part of an unconscious strategy for improvising a "safe space" of sorts. Again, it does not automatically follow that there are better immediate alternatives, although again they should be pursued nonetheless.
Morituri Delendi!
