"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[Seraphina]

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

[Divinity]

Divinity, you have never treated any conservative on these forums with respect. You swear and accuse. That's it. And you're not even good at swearing.

No, I absolutely have.  The ones who deserve it--which are admittedly very few.  You aren't one of the ones who deserve it.   You don't deserve a single ounce of respect, and you never have.  So you can fuck off, to be quite honest.

[Edwardo Piet]

Divinity, you have never treated any conservative on these forums with respect. You swear and accuse. That's it. And you're not even good at swearing.

She's motherfucking epic at swearing. You can say what you like about Divinity (and she can say what she likes about you!) but one thing is certain she fucking rocks at swearing.

[Joods]

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?

Agree, Yet I've seen some of the individuals that kudosed your post, not think twice about using the word "retard". If that word doesn't phase them, then republicunt or any other derogatory word won't matter.

Just my two cents. You have a point shadow but I've already tried appealing to this forum about the use of the word " retard" and I just get told to deal with it. That and I shouldn't be so sensitive.

[Edwardo Piet]

Terms like feminazi, libtards, cucks, etc make me roll my eyes too.

The conservative insults always come across as more contrived than the liberal ones. The conservative's insults suck. It always sounds like they're trying WAY too hard.

[shadow]

I don't think there's ever a pragmatic purpose for calling someone a "cunt". You're being the opposite of calculative or manipulative. You're just speaking your mind when you say that. I think when you call someone a "cunt" you're calling them it because you think it's true and that they are indeed a cunt. There doesn't have to be an ulterior motive for everything you say. And in fact, brutal honesty like that is usually just people saying what they think regardless of if it's a good idea. Even if it's a very bad or stupid idea and only does harm. There's no pragmatic purpose to it, it's just saying what you think is true. And I myself should probably do a lot less of it... but it's hard sometimes to apply the "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all" approach because that feels selective in a dishonest way, like lying from omission. I dunno. I rarely speak purposefully. I'm not speaking purposefully now either. I should probably censor insults more because it upsets people. In fact I can't remember the last time I did speak purposefully. I don't tend to say anything for a reason I just think aloud. I'd feel fake if I had any motive for saying something other than saying it because I believed it. I guess I should just omit some things. But I'd rather not lie from omission unless I really have to (although yeah I'm having to cut down on insults if only or my own health's sake because when other people get hurt by me it hurts me). I don't normally call lies for omission lies at all though. When I say I never lie I mean I never lie from commission. Everybody lies from omission, it's impossible to avoid that even when you are a thinking-aloud-machine like I am. There's always some chances to speak your mind that you miss even when you're trying to not miss them. Although I guess I don't even tell any lies from omission if they're only really 'lies' if their very purpose is to deceive. Outside roleplaying/gaming I can't think of any times I do that. Anyway, the point is that not all speaking is calculated or invented for a useful purpose and I highly doubt that people call people cunts in order to try and improve matters they just call people cunts because they think it's the truth.

Hmm, interesting. Personally I always speak with a purpose; I see language as a tool to communicate. I wouldn't say or do something if I didn't have a purpose (not necessarily a calculative or manipulative purpose of course, but some purpose).

[Edwardo Piet]

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?

Agree, Yet I've seen some of the individuals that kudosed your post, not think twice about using the word "retard". If that word doesn't phase them, then republicunt or any other derogatory word won't matter.

Just my two cents. You have a point shadow but I've already tried appealing to this forum about the use of the word " retard" and I just get told to deal with it. That and I shouldn't be so sensitive.

I don't think there should be any taboo words, TBH. It's all about context really. You used the word "retard" yourself when you were explaining that you don't like the word, for example. And I've seen you call people "religitards" before.

---

I don't think there's ever a pragmatic purpose for calling someone a "cunt". You're being the opposite of calculative or manipulative. You're just speaking your mind when you say that. I think when you call someone a "cunt" you're calling them it because you think it's true and that they are indeed a cunt. There doesn't have to be an ulterior motive for everything you say. And in fact, brutal honesty like that is usually just people saying what they think regardless of if it's a good idea. Even if it's a very bad or stupid idea and only does harm. There's no pragmatic purpose to it, it's just saying what you think is true. And I myself should probably do a lot less of it... but it's hard sometimes to apply the "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all" approach because that feels selective in a dishonest way, like lying from omission. I dunno. I rarely speak purposefully. I'm not speaking purposefully now either. I should probably censor insults more because it upsets people. In fact I can't remember the last time I did speak purposefully. I don't tend to say anything for a reason I just think aloud. I'd feel fake if I had any motive for saying something other than saying it because I believed it. I guess I should just omit some things. But I'd rather not lie from omission unless I really have to (although yeah I'm having to cut down on insults if only or my own health's sake because when other people get hurt by me it hurts me). I don't normally call lies for omission lies at all though. When I say I never lie I mean I never lie from commission. Everybody lies from omission, it's impossible to avoid that even when you are a thinking-aloud-machine like I am. There's always some chances to speak your mind that you miss even when you're trying to not miss them. Although I guess I don't even tell any lies from omission if they're only really 'lies' if their very purpose is to deceive. Outside roleplaying/gaming I can't think of any times I do that. Anyway, the point is that not all speaking is calculated or invented for a useful purpose and I highly doubt that people call people cunts in order to try and improve matters they just call people cunts because they think it's the truth.

Hmm, interesting. Personally I always speak with a purpose; I see language as a tool to communicate. I wouldn't say or do something if I didn't have a purpose (not necessarily a calculative or manipulative purpose of course, but some purpose).

Yeah I guess I don't really listen much.

Well, depends what you mean by "listen." I read/listen to the person and respond to what they say, but I would never call myself a good listener or good communicator. I'd call myself a good arguer and someone who speaks their mind. I think I'm also good at supporting people as a friend. I'm good at being there for people. I don't tend to talk to people for any purpose other than to enjoy talking to them and I simply wish for them to enjoy talking me too. I naturally join in with discussions by saying what I think when I find myself in that discussion.

[Seraphina]

I don't think there's ever a pragmatic purpose for calling someone a "cunt". You're being the opposite of calculative or manipulative. You're just speaking your mind when you say that. I think when you call someone a "cunt" you're calling them it because you think it's true and that they are indeed a cunt. There doesn't have to be an ulterior motive for everything you say. And in fact, brutal honesty like that is usually just people saying what they think regardless of if it's a good idea. Even if it's a very bad or stupid idea and only does harm. There's no pragmatic purpose to it, it's just saying what you think is true. And I myself should probably do a lot less of it... but it's hard sometimes to apply the "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all" approach because that feels selective in a dishonest way, like lying from omission. I dunno. I rarely speak purposefully. I'm not speaking purposefully now either. I should probably censor insults more because it upsets people. In fact I can't remember the last time I did speak purposefully. I don't tend to say anything for a reason I just think aloud. I'd feel fake if I had any motive for saying something other than saying it because I believed it. I guess I should just omit some things. But I'd rather not lie from omission unless I really have to (although yeah I'm having to cut down on insults if only or my own health's sake because when other people get hurt by me it hurts me). I don't normally call lies for omission lies at all though. When I say I never lie I mean I never lie from commission. Everybody lies from omission, it's impossible to avoid that even when you are a thinking-aloud-machine like I am. There's always some chances to speak your mind that you miss even when you're trying to not miss them. Although I guess I don't even tell any lies from omission if they're only really 'lies' if their very purpose is to deceive. Outside roleplaying/gaming I can't think of any times I do that. Anyway, the point is that not all speaking is calculated or invented for a useful purpose and I highly doubt that people call people cunts in order to try and improve matters they just call people cunts because they think it's the truth.

Hmm, interesting. Personally I always speak with a purpose; I see language as a tool to communicate. I wouldn't say or do something if I didn't have a purpose (not necessarily a calculative or manipulative purpose of course, but some purpose).

I have to agree with that.
I don't use coarse language around my kid because she needs to learn to articulate herself with good English. And we go by "don't discuss politics in mixed company" in our house.
Now after all that if she gets interested in politics when she grows up and uses insults, that's on her lol.

-Teresa

[Joods]

And I only used that word to explain reasoning. I didn't use that word as an insult against anyone. But I suppose you'll find a way to twist that meaning too.

Sorry but there is no excuse for using the R word. Anytime someone calls someone that word, they are using it in a derogatory manner. And if they're going deny that truth then they really don't care who they hurt when they use it.

[Edwardo Piet]

If I only spoke with purpose I think I'd barely say anything at all. I'd be very very quiet as a person. In practice I'm the opposite because I just think aloud, I'm an open book, what you see is what you get, as it were, and then when people respond to that, I respond to their response with further thoughts. I talk a lot because I think a lot and my thoughts drive me crazy when they stay in my head. They loop over and over.

---

And I only used that word to explain reasoning. I didn't use that word as an insult against anyone. But I suppose you'll find a way to twist that meaning too.

Sorry but there is no excuse for using the R word. Anytime someone calls someone that word, they are using it in a derogatory manner. And if they're going deny that truth then they really don't care who they hurt when they use it.

I don't twist meanings.

We all get offended by different things. Offense is purely subjective. Personally I get much more offended by being told I twist meanings or that I'm dishonest, than I'd ever get by being called a retard. Regardless of whether I have a learning disability or know someone with one or not (there is, after all, nothing wrong with being disabled... but there is something wrong with being dishonest). We all get offended by different things for our own personal reasons.