blogs_blog_406

I'm sorry, but terms like "sexist" or "homophobic" or even "bigot" are not insults or name-calling, they are appropriate labels, and important ones, at that. If someone is being sexist, then it is appropriate to call them such. It is not an ad hominem, it is not "name-calling", it is factual and true.

I'm sorry, but terms like "sexist" or "homophobic" or even "bigot" are not insults or name-calling, they are appropriate labels, and important ones, at that. If someone is being sexist, then it is appropriate to call them such. It is not an ad hominem, it is not "name-calling", it is factual and true.

/ENDQUOTE

 

Insult: To treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt

 

Name calling: The use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts

Yeah, sorry, terms like "sexist" or "bigoted" are not insulting names, they are factual descriptors. If someone is insulted by a factual term, that is on them. It is not name calling to use terms appropriately. Labeling someone or an argument sexist is not the same thing as calling someone "stupid" or the like. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Yeah, sorry, terms like "sexist" or "bigoted" are not insulting names, they are factual descriptors. If someone is insulted by a factual term, that is on them. It is not name calling to use terms appropriately. Labeling someone or an argument sexist is not the same thing as calling someone "stupid" or the like. You are comparing apples and oranges.

/ENDQUOTE

 

The point of calling someone a sexist or bigot is to harm their reputation and insult them. By doing so, you are treating them with contempt.

 

Now please, I'd really like this to stay locked. I understand you are the blog leader and that you are in charge here, but I locked this for a reason. The point of his entry is that people should use rationality and logic to support their points instead of demeaning labels, and I would rather not distract from such an important message that is lost in today's political climate.

 

The point of calling someone a sexist or bigot is to harm their reputation and insult them. By doing so, you are treating them with contempt.

 

The point of calling someone a sexist or a bigot is to point out that they are factually a sexist or a bigot. It is a label based on fact, and based on objective reality. It is therefore, according to the definitions you gave, not name-calling. While I can agree that it can be used to show contempt (and sexist rhetoric and bigots are deserving of contempt and do not deserve the respect of society), the point is not to insult, but to label.

 

When they are used accurately, they are not insults. Someone may say "oh you called me that and you harmed my reputation!" Well, if the words were used correctly, then yes, you should lose your reputation for being such. The idea that all rhetoric needs to be "respectful" to the point of being dishonest (which is what you're asking for, avoiding real labels in an attempt to not offend) is a false one. If someone's ideas and words are hurtful to society, then they need to be shown to be so, and labeled as such, and those ideas need to be held in contempt.

 

Using those terms is something that can be factually proven. They are NOT the same thing as using terms like "stupid" or "dumb" or using profanity. Ones arguing against these terms are almost invariably people who don't want to be stuck with them, because they'd like to go on with their ability to demean entire swaths of humanity for their own benefit. And that's not okay.

The point of calling someone a sexist or a bigot is to point out that they are factually a sexist or a bigot. It is a label based on fact, and based on objective reality. It is therefore, according to the definitions you gave, not name-calling. While I can agree that it can be used to show contempt (and sexist rhetoric and bigots are deserving of contempt and do not deserve the respect of society), the point is not to insult, but to label.

 

When they are used accurately, they are not insults. Someone may say "oh you called me that and you harmed my reputation!" Well, if the words were used correctly, then yes, you should lose your reputation for being such. The idea that all rhetoric needs to be "respectful" to the point of being dishonest (which is what you're asking for, avoiding real labels in an attempt to not offend) is a false one. If someone's ideas and words are hurtful to society, then they need to be shown to be so, and labeled as such, and those ideas need to be held in contempt.

 

Using those terms is something that can be factually proven. They are NOT the same thing as using terms like "stupid" or "dumb" or using profanity. Ones arguing against these terms are almost invariably people who don't want to be stuck with them, because they'd like to go on with their ability to demean entire swaths of humanity for their own benefit. And that's not okay.

 

/QUOTE

 

First off, this is my last post on this topic. My wish is for this argument to die because it is distracting from an actual issue. However, I feel I must respond to some of the things you have said.

 

First off, you opening is a prime example of circular reasoning. It is like saying "x is an orange because it is an orange' rather than proving why 'x' is an orange (namely, being a round, orange fruit). The entire point of the label is to hurt someone - you don't call somebody you like a 'sexist', you call people you disagree with 'sexist'. And you completely ignore the definition of 'insult', which does not have a 'if you are right you aren't insulting your opponent' clause. By calling someone a bigot/sexist, you are insulting them by treating them with contempt. You and other people in the other blog post's attitude is nothing short of contemptous towards the one or two people who didn't agree 100% with you. So the fact that 'sexist' and 'bigot' are insults is not an arguable point because they are proven fact according to the dictionary. You can argue if the label is right, but it is still an insult.

 

Second, you have no idea what I mean by 'respect' because you obviously didn't understand it. My motive here is to show that insults are poor debate form and are not respectful, and apparently that goes in the face of many people who like to call names or insult and think that is good debate form. In the recent debate, many people insulted and demeaned their opponents to harm them and their viewpoint. They this by yelling 'sexist' instead of debating or debunking the core issues at hand. This not only reflects poorly on them, it reflects poorly on their position and people who share it, and it certainly doesn't make people want to change their opinions. The gist is, if you have the better side, prove it. Don't use insults on someone when you can use logic.

 

Finally, thanks for the insult at the end - I really appreciate being labeled as someone who wants to 'demean entire swaths of humanity for [my] own benefit'. That sort of label is really nice and it really makes me want to join you in supporting your view.... Not. Really, insults bring nothing other than an incensed reaction from the opponent and they spark a lot of vitriolic anger on both sides, and I'm surprised that people think it could possibly ever go the other way. For the record, I am pretty much in agreement that men and women are mostly equal and that women can serve in the military, but you assumed I wasn't because I was arguing insulting labels are wrong.

The "insult" (seriously, you are misusing this term immensely, and it does not help anything) was not directed at you, it was directed at the societal argument that terms like "sexist" or "racist" are hurtful and offensive and so they should stop being used, which is, frankly, utter and complete poppycock.

 

I agree that insults are poor debate form, I even explicitly showed examples of them. What I am disagreeing with is the idea that these factual labels are insulting and shouldn't be used. If a person is a sexist or a bigot, then the word fits, and it should be used. Yes, the terms have negative connotations. They are bad things.

That does not mean that they are name-calling. That they are juvenile or that they have no place in a debate or a discussion. Frankly, the idea that these terms are insulting is a great argument for allowing detrimental and disrespectful ideologies to continue and allows those who hold them to use those ideologies and avoid the implications and full span of their views.

I am extremely opposed to calling someone names. I will edit those out or tell people to knock it off, because that is against BZP policy, and it's rude, you're right.

 

I will not tell someone to stop using proper terminology because those who align with those terms feel upset about it. If you don't want to be labeled a sexist- don't align yourself with sexist ideology.

 

The entire point of calling someone a sexist isn't to hurt someone- it's to point out that their ideology is flawed and hurtful and wrong and that it is unacceptable. It is a label, not an insult, and I am continuing to post in here because your conflation of the two is bad form and actually muddles the conversation and indeed, it attempts to handcuff one group and validate another which does not deserve validation.

 

To top it all off, one only has to look at the Wikipedia page on "insult" to see that the "dictionary definition" you're using is much narrower in scope than the term actually implies. It is not an insult if it is a factual descriptor, regardless of the offended party's feelings. The only time a factual descriptor is an insult is if it is pejorative, and while being labeled "sexist" is not a good thing, the term is not pejorative.

 

And in the case of the discussion that was taking place, the label of "sexist" in most cases was earned by the (very obvious) arguments of those aligning themselves with sexist rhetoric, and indeed, when pushed back upon with factual examples and discussion, those in question doubled down.

 

I'm entirely with you, by the way (again), on avoiding insults. On rude behaviour in discussions. If I'm talking to a fan of the OU Sooners football team, and we're talking about how I'm a fan of the rival OSU Cowboys football team (which is true!), insults are very clearly a bad form, and completely ruin the conversation.

 

However, this isn't a discussion about something trivial. It's one about the entire movement of society and the freedom and rights of half the world's population. I don't tolerate intolerance. I do not tolerate intolerant ideals, speech, or the expression thereof. There is a time where your "opponent" (and I think I made it clear in the entry in question that I don't view any of those involved as an "opponent") espouses views that are not deserving of respect. I still agree that insulting said person is wrong. But their ideology does not and will not garner my respect. It is wrong, it is hurtful, and it has real-world implications that allow for oppression, death, violence, and it is bad bad bad. And giving it a proper label is not an insult.