"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[Edwardo Piet]

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? 

You don't seem to understand what 'dishonesty' is . . . it wouldn't mean that I expressed opinions that you consider to be bullshit. It would mean that I expressed opinions that I do consider to be bullshit. If I express some intention and fail to follow through with it you seem to take that as dishonesty too even when I honestly tried to follow through with it

I do notice that the (few) people who don't recognize me as an honest person don't seem to even grasp the basic concept of honesty.