"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Even Jesus called people bad names in the Bible so swearing at people who piss you off is God approved.

[Edwardo Piet]

Do you ever worry that you're mental illnesses, and need to maintain/rationalize the weird self-image you're trying to project cuts whatever intelligence you may have off at the knees?  You've completely missed the most important aspect of the discussion while you were busy with the bullshit of painting yourself as some unfiltered champion of truth.

What the bloody hell are you babbling on about? Disagreeing with the opinion of the OP isn't missing the point of the discussion. And who says I have a mental illness?

---

The point is that the truth is more important than being effective or inoffensive.

Why?

Because there's no point in being effective or inoffensive if what you're saying is bullshit.

[Amarok]

Do you ever worry that you're mental illnesses, and need to maintain/rationalize the weird self-image you're trying to project cuts whatever intelligence you may have off at the knees?  You've completely missed the most important aspect of the discussion while you were busy with the bullshit of painting yourself as some unfiltered champion of truth.

What the bloody hell are you babbling on about? Disagreeing with the opinion of the OP isn't missing the point of the discussion. And who says I have a mental illness?

---

Why?

Because there's no point in being effective or inoffensive if what you're saying is bullshit.

Agreed if being effective or inoffensive were a mark of truth then cults and failed political systems would be the winners .

---

As for the stupid analogy between confederate statues and calling republicans retarded (as in holding moronic delusional positions) it's just that . There is a difference between saying the general politics someone holds as delusional or moronic . And black people being angry that people who made it a governing policy that they could owned property are treated as local or national heroes .

[LuisDantas]

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.

[brewer]

So.... Min walks into a bar and sits next to a catholic conservative republican ex-priest and former CEO police officer.  

What happens next?

[henryp]

Do you ever worry that you're mental illnesses, and need to maintain/rationalize the weird self-image you're trying to project cuts whatever intelligence you may have off at the knees?  You've completely missed the most important aspect of the discussion while you were busy with the bullshit of painting yourself as some unfiltered champion of truth.

What the bloody hell are you babbling on about? Disagreeing with the opinion of the OP isn't missing the point of the discussion. And who says I have a mental illness?

---

Why?

Because there's no point in being effective or inoffensive if what you're saying is bullshit.

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.

[The Industrial Atheist]

I think there are many more Republican voters that are basically good people than Republican politicians. Hell, I vote Democrat because they are less bought off, I know they aren't pure either.

[brewer]

What the bloody hell are you babbling on about? Disagreeing with the opinion of the OP isn't missing the point of the discussion. And who says I have a mental illness?

It's not that I want to start an argument but...................you have.

[vorlon13]

So.... Min walks into a bar and sits next to a catholic conservative republican ex-priest and former CEO police officer.  

What happens next?

big wet sloppy kiss ?


Idunno, trick question ??

[Edwardo Piet]

What the bloody hell are you babbling on about? Disagreeing with the opinion of the OP isn't missing the point of the discussion. And who says I have a mental illness?

---

Because there's no point in being effective or inoffensive if what you're saying is bullshit.

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.

You fail to recognize the fact the word 'retarded' has multiple meanings and isn't merely a slur. It is not the case with words like 'nigger'.

Your analogies are retarded, for instance.

And I am not saying you are talking about the OP position. Although you should be because it's the topic. And I was talking about the OP position that I disagreed with when I listed the words that I have no problem with using in what your post is responding to. You do appear to be disingenuous as fuck with a shady agenda, and the fact you also appear to be the type that wants a safe space and thinks it's a good idea to sugarcoat things or that it means you're bigoted if you use certain words, all falls rather in line with that, IMO.

And Lomd is right, using strong words is more of a sign of passion than anything, generally.

Like I said, when people say these things it's usually because they genuinely think these things . . . it's being brutally honest, not being anti-discussion. It's those that seem to think that every opinion has to have an ulterior motive aside from speaking one's mind that I personally find rather questionable.