5 ms·

Off the top of my head: libtard, cuck, shill, godless, communist, hippy, thug, welfare queen, other assumptions that their opponent has no job or no work ethic

by heurist 10y ago

Off the top of my head: libtard, cuck, shill, godless, communist, hippy, thug, welfare queen, other assumptions that their opponent has no job or no work ethic or smokes a lot of weed. "Intolerant" is a bipartisan insult now as well.

judah 10y ago
I don't deny those have been used against the left. (Although some terms, like shill, aren't left or right wing, and godless could describe an atheist whether conservative or liberal.) The difference is cadence. Do conservatives label virtually all our opponents with slurs? No. But the inverse is true: the left almost invariably labels its opponents with SIXHIRB. For example, go to FoxNews.com and find articles about leftists. Is there name calling? How often? Now do the same on HuffingtonPost.com and find articles about conservatives. Is there name calling? How often?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Do conservatives label virtually all our opponents with slurs? Yes. That is, for any opponent of the right, you'll find someone on the right that has labelled them with a slur for their politics. Of course, many on the Right see themselves as individuals and the Left as a single faceless collective, so while they will take it as "the Left" using a slur if anyone on the Left does so, they will dismiss it as an isolated subgroup if someone on the Right, but not the whole Right, does so for a particular target on the Left. (The same is true in reverse, of course.)
- heurist 10y ago
  There's a lot of overreaction on the left but the right does have some real issues with race, religion, and gender. If you create policy that oppresses people on any of those bases without some damn good reasons you should expect to be labeled accordingly. How would you suggest the left approach minority voter suppression? Racially biased criminal justice systems? The rise of religion and race-based hate speech and hate crimes? Perpetual Republican attempts to control what women can do with their bodies? Republican attempts to teach Christian creationism and abstinence-only sex ed in public schools? Hell, how about painfully irrepresentative gerrymandering? Disproven and destructive economic policy? The predominantly conservative military-industrial complex? The financialization of power? Global climate change? Environmental catastrophes? The dismantling of government institutions that serve millions of Americans? How should the left expose people to their subconscious biases in a way that causes change? I agree calling everyone "racist" doesn't help but at least it gets the message across.
  - judah 10y ago
    >> "I agree calling everyone "racist" doesn't help but at least it gets the message across." By that measure, the best way to expose people to their subconscious bias about abortion is to call them murderers of innocent children. Sure, it gets the message across. It just doesn't help public discourse, and it furthers the divide between Americans of different political viewpoints. As for your political points, you asked "how should the left address [list of perceived wrongs]." Answer: that's for you to figure out. But if you simply resort to name-calling and personal attacks, we in middle America will keep voting for people who oppose you. Speaking for myself, if the left persists in personal attacks and identity politics, I'd be glad to vote for Donald Trump for a 2nd term.
    - heurist 10y ago
      What I'm saying is when the left attempts to engage in rational debate they're called names or ignored just the same. The problem you're talking about doesn't only exist on the left. Case in point: lots of pro-lifers do call liberals murderers of innocent children. I'd argue that a clump of embryonic cells is no more important than the pounds of dead skin we shed in our lifetimes and that there are important benefits to allowing abortion... But I do at least try to understand where they're coming from, see things from their point of view. Another instance: I listed out several plainly-worded, well-known, evidence-supported societal issues based in race, religion, and gender and your response is to simply call them "perceived wrongs". You're clearly an intelligent person and I'm sure you can understand how many on the left make the logical leap from ignorance of systemic bias to racism. If you're a white person living in middle America you most likely aren't exposed to even half of the day-to-day issues that come up when we don't acknowledge and account for tribal ideologies. Ignoring these problems increases volatility for everyone. Vote for Trump again if you want but don't be surprised if we elect a literal communist after him...
      - judah 10y ago
        >> "I listed out several plainly-worded, well-known, evidence-supported societal issues based in race, religion, and gender and your response is to simply call them "perceived wrongs." Yes, because you perceive them to be real wrongs, and we do not. I find most of them to be very good and progress for our society towards an upright, life-honoring and wise civilization. >> How would you suggest the left approach minority voter suppression? Voter suppression? You mean like requiring identification for voters like many western nations already do? We find it insulting to minorities to say they're being supressed by asking for identification. In a fair system, each person gets 1 vote. Identification helps ensure that. It's not suppression, it's ensuring fairness. Most of your other issues are likewise based on false assumptions.

by heurist 10y ago

judah 10y ago

I don't deny those have been used against the left. (Although some terms, like shill, aren't left or right wing, and godless could describe an atheist whether conservative or liberal.) The difference is cadence. Do conservatives label virtually all our opponents with slurs? No. But the inverse is true: the left almost invariably labels its opponents with SIXHIRB. For example, go to FoxNews.com and find articles about leftists. Is there name calling? How often? Now do the same on HuffingtonPost.com and find articles about conservatives. Is there name calling? How often?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Do conservatives label virtually all our opponents with slurs? Yes. That is, for any opponent of the right, you'll find someone on the right that has labelled them with a slur for their politics. Of course, many on the Right see themselves as individuals and the Left as a single faceless collective, so while they will take it as "the Left" using a slur if anyone on the Left does so, they will dismiss it as an isolated subgroup if someone on the Right, but not the whole Right, does so for a particular target on the Left. (The same is true in reverse, of course.)
heurist 10y ago
There's a lot of overreaction on the left but the right does have some real issues with race, religion, and gender. If you create policy that oppresses people on any of those bases without some damn good reasons you should expect to be labeled accordingly. How would you suggest the left approach minority voter suppression? Racially biased criminal justice systems? The rise of religion and race-based hate speech and hate crimes? Perpetual Republican attempts to control what women can do with their bodies? Republican attempts to teach Christian creationism and abstinence-only sex ed in public schools? Hell, how about painfully irrepresentative gerrymandering? Disproven and destructive economic policy? The predominantly conservative military-industrial complex? The financialization of power? Global climate change? Environmental catastrophes? The dismantling of government institutions that serve millions of Americans? How should the left expose people to their subconscious biases in a way that causes change? I agree calling everyone "racist" doesn't help but at least it gets the message across.
- judah 10y ago
  >> "I agree calling everyone "racist" doesn't help but at least it gets the message across." By that measure, the best way to expose people to their subconscious bias about abortion is to call them murderers of innocent children. Sure, it gets the message across. It just doesn't help public discourse, and it furthers the divide between Americans of different political viewpoints. As for your political points, you asked "how should the left address [list of perceived wrongs]." Answer: that's for you to figure out. But if you simply resort to name-calling and personal attacks, we in middle America will keep voting for people who oppose you. Speaking for myself, if the left persists in personal attacks and identity politics, I'd be glad to vote for Donald Trump for a 2nd term.
  - heurist 10y ago
    What I'm saying is when the left attempts to engage in rational debate they're called names or ignored just the same. The problem you're talking about doesn't only exist on the left. Case in point: lots of pro-lifers do call liberals murderers of innocent children. I'd argue that a clump of embryonic cells is no more important than the pounds of dead skin we shed in our lifetimes and that there are important benefits to allowing abortion... But I do at least try to understand where they're coming from, see things from their point of view. Another instance: I listed out several plainly-worded, well-known, evidence-supported societal issues based in race, religion, and gender and your response is to simply call them "perceived wrongs". You're clearly an intelligent person and I'm sure you can understand how many on the left make the logical leap from ignorance of systemic bias to racism. If you're a white person living in middle America you most likely aren't exposed to even half of the day-to-day issues that come up when we don't acknowledge and account for tribal ideologies. Ignoring these problems increases volatility for everyone. Vote for Trump again if you want but don't be surprised if we elect a literal communist after him...
    - judah 10y ago
      >> "I listed out several plainly-worded, well-known, evidence-supported societal issues based in race, religion, and gender and your response is to simply call them "perceived wrongs." Yes, because you perceive them to be real wrongs, and we do not. I find most of them to be very good and progress for our society towards an upright, life-honoring and wise civilization. >> How would you suggest the left approach minority voter suppression? Voter suppression? You mean like requiring identification for voters like many western nations already do? We find it insulting to minorities to say they're being supressed by asking for identification. In a fair system, each person gets 1 vote. Identification helps ensure that. It's not suppression, it's ensuring fairness. Most of your other issues are likewise based on false assumptions.