Words that have no place in normal discourse

[politicus]

People who are idiots, bigots, racists, disgusting souls or evil people deserve nothing less than being called as such. I won't stop calling a racist a racist just because it's 'mean'.

Okay, but racist and bigot are often used against people who simply opposes non-western immigration to the western world or show any kind of scepticism towards the multicultural society. Where is a number of perfectly good reasons to object multiculturalism and immigration so this practice is hardly valid or reasonable.
Those words should be reserved for people who truly are racists or bigots, which is a much smaller group.
Idiot is never a constructive word in a debate. Neither are evil and disgusting.
Generally it would be more sensible to simply not use those words or reserve them for extreme cases.

[Хahar 🤔]

Okay, but racist and bigot are often used against people who simply opposes non-western immigration to the western world

That would be because it's a racist and bigoted opinion to hold.

[politicus]

Why?

Racism consists of two main components:

A. A persons race determines the character, ability and intelligence of that person
B. Some races are superior to others

You don't have to hold any of those views to be anti-immigration or being against multiculturalism.


 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Okay, but racist and bigot are often used against people who simply opposes non-western immigration to the western world

That would be because it's a racist and bigoted opinion to hold.

It's not a racist opinion to oppose immigration.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Okay, but racist and bigot are often used against people who simply opposes non-western immigration to the western world

That would be because it's a racist and bigoted opinion to hold.

It's not a racist opinion to oppose immigration.

He didn't say opposing immigration was racist, he said people who oppose non-Western (people not from US/Canada/West Europe). Opposing immigration from one specific location (say Mexico...) but being open to immigration from elsewhere is a form of racism, because it implies that Mexicans are a lesser race or people.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Okay, but racist and bigot are often used against people who simply opposes non-western immigration to the western world

That would be because it's a racist and bigoted opinion to hold.

It's not a racist opinion to oppose immigration.

He didn't say opposing immigration was racist, he said people who oppose non-Western (people not from US/Canada/West Europe). Opposing immigration from one specific location (say Mexico...) but being open to immigration from elsewhere is a form of racism, because it implies that Mexicans are a lesser race or people.

My bad - I misread that as only immigration to western countries.  But yeah, if you're opposing immigration from a certain location, that's racist (or some form of bigotry, since I wouldn't classify all non-Western people as a "race"), but too often, people who oppose immigration are also labelled racists.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting that most Americans continue to insist that 'race' is a 'thing', isn't it?

[patrick1]

Interesting that most Americans continue to insist that 'race' is a 'thing', isn't it?

Even if it has a weak scientific basis, it still exists in people's minds and perceptions. And that is really what matters in most public discourse.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting that most Americans continue to insist that 'race' is a 'thing', isn't it?

Even if it has a weak scientific basis, it still exists in people's minds and perceptions. And that is really what matters in most public discourse.

Yes. Which is why it's so interesting.

[patrick1]

Interesting that most Americans continue to insist that 'race' is a 'thing', isn't it?

Even if it has a weak scientific basis, it still exists in people's minds and perceptions. And that is really what matters in most public discourse.

Yes. Which is why it's so interesting.

Americans tend to be intellectually lazy.  We'd rather just go on looks alone than those more subtle classist artifices than have been erected by you Britons. Who has time to decide if someone has a public school accent or affectations? 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I find it kind of interesting... since it tends to be the same people who say "political correctness has gone mad"! who resent having opinions called out that are, at least in perception, racist or bigoted, or ignorant... or any combination of them.

Even an earlier post referred to liberals as 'know-it-alls' - if you expand that out... it's not exactly positive.

[Torie]

Such words should be used with discretion, and in general, very parsimoniously. Most are used too often.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Such words should be used with discretion, and in general, very parsimoniously. Most are used too often.

I agree with that, I think the right should be there to use them if someone says something that justifies it. But they lose a good quantity of weight if they're overused.

[Gustaf]

Is Gustaf really criticizing people for being self-righteous?

I'm one of the most humble people I know.

Disliking people who support slaughter of innocent people (especially if they're Jewish) doesn't really make me self-righteous - I don't think that's an opinion that is unique to me nor do I think it takes much intellectual effort or emotional maturity to reach it. Rather, it reflects poorly on the minority of people to which you belong.

The attitude that "I am always so right that anyone who disagrees with me is a racist idiot who should probably be shot and me saying so is just speaking THE TRUTH" is being too self-righteous to understand the point being made here.

I have friends who are active in all political parties in Sweden. I have several quite close friends with extremely divergent views, both from each other and from me. I've learnt that this does not make them bad people. We're all formed by different experiences and we all have our biases. Being unable to comprehend this (especially when you're a teenager on an internet forum who doesn't actually know all that much and will change your opinion later on anyway) is a bit sad.

I reserve my contempt for the few people who actually deserve it and they're not that many. Even then I rarely feel the need to name-call them - I usually find that just pointing out to people what they're actually saying is sufficient to get them all riled up.

[Insula Dei]

Also- I am adding another word to the list- FASCIST
I have seen the Pledge of Allegiance, school vouchers, conscription, and other policies refered to as fascist...in a fascist country people are killed for who they are or what they believe, families are torn apart, people are not free in any sense of the word... nothing in the normal political discourse from the left or the right is anywhere near being fascist...

None of that, of course, is what fascism is about. Like all totalitarian ideologies fascism exludes any sort of conciousness of its dirty underbelly. To inaccurately quote Dennis Potter's Brimstone and Treacle (always important to know one's audience): 'No, I don't want any camps or guns!' - 'But what if they won't go away?'

[Yelnoc]

Y'all is foo's.  Every single wann'a y'all.

[dead0man]

I'm going to call disgusting things out for what they are.

Indeed.  Like saying civilians living beyond the green line are fair targets for terrorists.

[Hatman 🍁]

Klecly- I wouldn't call Hatman's post stupid as that is what I am trying to work against... but I agree conservatism can not be considered an extreme ideology...this argument loses you credibility, Hatman

Does it? I'm sorry, but it appears I've "won" the thread. But I must say, just because a lot of people are conservatives, doesn't mean it's not an extreme ideology. You don't have to even think of it as a bad thing. In fact, if I were you, I'd wear it as a badge of honour.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That quote smells like something Ann Coulter might say to try and smear all Liberals. Perhaps some Liberals believe that, but I think it is wrong to brand all Liberals as falling under the same beliefs (it's wrong to label conservatives as well under all of the same beliefs, however, conservatives tend to be more ideologically homogenous compared to liberals, around the world, I've found). In my opinion, there is no reason for a liberal to support something like Sharia law. Allowing any religious beliefs take precedence in the court of law is a scary thought.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wait, I thought conservatives have branded Maher as a Liberal? You can't have it both ways. This quote sounds to me like the generic belief of most liberals, so thanks for pointing it out. Good to see you're not as conservative as I thought.