"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[Divinity]

When they have views worth considering, I'll consider them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I call them cunts, because they act like cunts. When they stop acting like a cunt, I'll stop calling them that.

Takes one to know one.

[shadow]

I call them cunts, because they act like cunts.  When they stop acting like a cunt, I'll stop calling them that.

Takes one to know one.

My point exactly.

When they have views worth considering, I'll consider them.

But what good does it do to try to lock people out of a discussion? I'm not saying you need to adopt views you disagree with, but considering them is not a costly exercise; in fact, it increases your own power if you understand what motivates people and the frame of reference they use for making decisions. Even if you disagree with them. Especially if you disagree with them.

[Divinity]

See the problem is you're assuming that these people argue in what we call "Good Faith". They don't. Arguing with a conservative is like playing chess with a drunk pigeon. It doesn't matter what you say, they're just going to knock over the board, shit all over it, and declare victory.

[shadow]

See the problem is you're assuming that these people argue in what we call "Good Faith".  They don't.  Arguing with a conservative is like playing chess with a drunk pigeon.  It doesn't matter what you say, they're just going to knock over the board, shit all over it, and declare victory.

That's just not remotely true for all conservatives, though. I have huge respect for some conservative people I know, who are very intelligent and provide reasoned discussion. Usually generalizations like this fall down when you actually talk to enough of the people who you hate and try to understand them.

Why do you think conservatives wouldn't specifically be able to argue in good faith? What do you think their alterior motive is, a realistic motive than can be applied to a huge group of people?

[Aroura]

I agree. It might make the person saying it feel better, but it solves nothing, and actually causes problems. Don't like being called a libtard or a snowflake?
Then don't retaliate or sink to those levels.

---

See the problem is you're assuming that these people argue in what we call "Good Faith".  They don't.  Arguing with a conservative is like playing chess with a drunk pigeon.  It doesn't matter what you say, they're just going to knock over the board, shit all over it, and declare victory.

In youtube comments or some other social media, maybe. But that provides a certain level of anonymity that turns a lot of people into assholes.
In RL, and that's where most of us live, they aren't going to be like that, any more than you are.
I mean, yes, there are some still like that IRL as well, but the numbers drop.  

There is a certain amount of annoying dittohead namedropping that happens that can be frustrating.  Everytime people say things like "I can see I've triggered you", or "put on your bigboy pants" or "Aren't you a special snowflake" I know those people are just angry and aggressive and have turned off all rational parts of their brains.  There is no point in having a conversation no matter their political orientation.

Just don't engage those people, certainly don't engage them at their own low level of conversation.  Talk to the reasonable ones.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

[Divinity]

That's just not remotely true for all conservatives, though. I have huge respect for some conservative people I know, who are very intelligent and provide reasoned discussion. Usually generalizations like this fall down when you actually talk to enough of the people who you hate and try to understand them.

Why do you think conservatives wouldn't specifically be able to argue in good faith? What do you think their alterior motive is, a realistic motive than can be applied to a huge group of people?

Ahh yes, the namby pamby "Not All X" bullshit argument people make, as if calling someone a Republicunt means you think ALL Republicans are Republicunts.  (A majority of them are, but that's beside the point)

If someone responds in a rational manner, I will treat them in kind.  If they're shitty human beings (like Wooters for example.  Take his moral highground in this topic with "Takes one to know one!" bullshit, which is a fucking stupid thing to say, especially for him.  Since apparently that makes him a commie, since he's called several people on this board commies) then I will treat them like the shit they act like.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[Cod]

I hate the term Codology for some reason.