Sexists, racists, and bigots

[First Crusader]

A completely unrelated debate that didn't mention any of the terms below just randomly brougt up an interesting thought in my mind concerning name calling.

If you disagree with someone on an issue like gay marriage, abortion, or the feminist movement, calling him a sexist/racist/bigot doesn't disprove his argument.

Fortunately, such silly statements are relatively rare in this forum, but they do happen.

Most arguments don't deserve being called racist or sexist. Unless the guy says something like "I hate :wub:", or "I hate white trash", then there is no point in calling him a bigot.

Sadly, I too have fallen into name calling a couple of times. I am sure most of us have. But lets try to avoid it.

[Last Roman]

unfortunatly, this is easier said than done , but i do agree. It seems that most people here are smarter than the average joe six pack, thus we should act like it

[leeho730]

Then you probably shouldn't over-react to the piggy bank story in Britain...

Though Muslims are a small minority in Britain, the government is bowing to their every wish, no matter how preposterous it may be. I think this is just cowardice. These leaders are just too afraid to say "no" to the Muslims.

[bigfootedfred]

i was actully blown away by the sexism on another thread.

it was like taking a trip to medieval europe....
i had no idea so many people here were such smug superior :wub:s

[Rowan11088]

i was actully blown away by the sexism on another thread.

it was like taking a trip to medieval europe....
i had no idea so many people here were such smug superior :wub:s

Hey, if this was medieval Europe, you'd have gotten your head chopped off for what you said in that thread...I'd say we've made some progress.

[Pra]

i was actully blown away by the sexism on another thread.

it was like taking a trip to medieval europe....
i had no idea so many people here were such smug superior :wub:s

I'm sorry, I just really despise and loathe 'uber-feminists' to the same degree that I do 'uber-minority advocates' and 'uner-white supremecists'.

[Kanaric]

Then you probably shouldn't over-react to the piggy bank story in Britain...

DAYUM, you got him boy! Respeck!!!

Easily offended is easily offended, regardless of the topic.

[First Crusader]

DAYUM, you got him boy! Respeck!!!

Easily offended is easily offended, regardless of the topic.

Is there something in the water where you live that makes you say silly, off topic things?

I fail to see how British politics and corporate policy has ANYTHING to do with name calling.

And if I recall correctly, it was YOU who was easily offended by that thread, not me. You acted like I was some sort of terrorist for critisiczing Muslims.

[Lord Tomyris]

You acted like I was some sort of terrorist for critisiczing Muslims.

Ironic, isn't it?

[First Crusader]

Ironic, isn't it?

Oof! Low blow! That was cruel - but funny! :laughing:

[Francisco Montana]

Ok, I'm here. Oh, wait, I thought this was where we sexist, racist, bigots were suppose to meet!! :sign_wtf:

JK, It's very easy to spot a weak arguement. It usually has a "You're just a" somewhere in it.

Good advice 1st Crusader, we all need to be reminded from time to time.

[Francisco Montana]

Another thing that bugs me.

My wife does this alot and I'm just curious how many of you see it too, or after considering my post, might realize they do it themselves.

I'll use a trivial example:

Wife: "could you get milk on your way home."
Me: "we don't need milk, I saw we had plenty last night"
Wife: "we used it all this morning."
Me: "Ok, I'll get milk then"
Wife: "Plus, we could use extra for dinner"
Me: "Ok, I'll get milk then."
Wife "You always drink alot of milk, after all."
Me "Cheese and Crackers!! I said I would get milk. Why are you argueing something that I've already conceded??"


Again, trivial example, but you could see how in a real debate, it can not only get redundant, but down right annoying.

[the_mango55]

Another thing that bugs me.

My wife does this alot and I'm just curious how many of you see it too, or after considering my post, might realize they do it themselves.

I'll use a trivial example:

Wife: "could you get milk on your way home."
Me: "we don't need milk, I saw we had plenty last night"
Wife: "we used it all this morning."
Me: "Ok, I'll get milk then"
Wife: "Plus, we could use extra for dinner"
Me: "Ok, I'll get milk then."
Wife "You always drink alot of milk, after all."
Me "Cheese and Crackers!! I said I would get milk. Why are you argueing something that I've already conceded??"


Again, trivial example, but you could see how in a real debate, it can not only get redundant, but down right annoying.

Haha, I know the feeling. Though I have been guilty of that on occasion as well . Sometimes you just have some really good ponts, and you don't want them to go to waste just because you have already won the argument!

I also like how you used "Cheese and Crackers" there, It is one of my favorite exclaimations. I always forget ones like that and "jumping Jehosephat" and end up using something "tarnation" or "dad blame" or some other redneckish one.

[Francisco Montana]

Sometimes you just have some really good ponts, and you don't want them to go to waste just because you have already won the argument!

hehe.. Yes. Good point. But it usually comes across as "rubbing it in". As long as the reciepent doesn't mind being further convinced, no harm. But some get carried away with it I guess.

And yes, the Cheese And Crackers comes from 3 years of biting my tongue around my son. It makes posting on a forum and keeping it clean feel alot more natural at least!!

[Erik]

IMO name calling is a good way to strenghten an argument.

For example: "you are just a xenopobe, FC". (I think these kind of comments sparked this thread).
This I think is valid because I honestly beleive FC is a xenophobe.
By expressing my true feelings I express my point.
And if he disagrees he is free to give a counter argument.

Namecalling gets ugly only when people use labels they know are false.
But even them they should not get so worked up about it, it's just a computer game forum you know.

[Francisco Montana]

IMO name calling is a good way to strenghten an argument.

For example: "you are just a xenopobe, FC". (I think these kind of comments sparked this thread).
This I think is valid because I honestly beleive FC is a xenophobe.
By expressing my true feelings I express my point.
And if he disagrees he is free to give a counter argument.

Namecalling gets ugly only when people use labels they know are false.
But even them they should not get so worked up about it, it's just a computer game forum you know.

Nobody is saying you cannot use labels without being a prick. I think what most reasonable people would object to is when someone uses a generalization "You homophobe" without breaking down the opponents arguement to any degree.

FC, you are a xenophobe because everytime I try to discuss something you always fall back on your contempt for foreigners or their ideas.

That's not name calling.

FC, you're agrement for isolationism is lame because you are just a xenophobe.

That's name calling.

See the difference?

(P.S. Sorry FC, I have no idea if you are an isolationist, or a xenophobe for that matter. Just sacraficing your good name for an example. )

[First Crusader]

Nobody is saying you cannot use labels without being a prick. I think what most reasonable people would object to is when someone uses a generalization "You homophobe" without breaking down the opponents arguement to any degree.

FC, you are a xenophobe because everytime I try to discuss something you always fall back on your contempt for foreigners or their ideas.

That's not name calling.

FC, you're agrement for isolationism is lame because you are just a xenophobe.

That's name calling.

See the difference?

(P.S. Sorry FC, I have no idea if you are an isolationist, or a xenophobe for that matter. Just sacraficing your good name for an example. )

No problem. I don't mind being an "example"

Funny, Erik kind of proved my point about name calling. He can't explain why disliking Muslim extremists is bad, so he just calls me a "xenophobe"

[Zuwxiv]

Ad hominem attacks are used so often in modern politics because, sadly, it is effective. If some candidate calls the other candidate a "****** lover" (just an example) it makes the white audience feel superior and protected by that candidate, while the insulted man actually seems dangerous.

And people are generally idiots, so they will believe it. Sadly.

It is good to remember this when dealing with the public. Smile.

[Francisco Montana]

If some candidate calls the other candidate a "****** lover" (just an example) it makes the white audience feel superior and protected by that candidate, while the insulted man actually seems dangerous.

Wow. I know it's an example, but that's kinda creepy. You think white voters would support someone who calls their oppenent an 'N-word Lover' and find the N-word Lover dangerous?

Where have you been the last 50 years?

If you were blindly using that as an example, I would highly recommend finding a different approach to your premise. As a white voter, I find it extremely offensive. I'm not trying to bust your chops here, but I have a saying, "The Devil thinks as the Devil does."

[Ummon]

The funny side, is, that infact, if someone is an idiot, his arguments must be idiotic too, often. So ad hominems might not be always out of place. But never use them when the opponent is more clever than you are, because then you get:

1) the rebate
2) the guilt for the ad hominem

:wink: