NationStates Jolt Archive

Just like no sin is worse than the other, no slur is worse than the other. They're all equal.

Society just sucks.

TIME WARP!

I'm just wondering, since the Coulter business came up and is now costing her some money--seven papers have now dropped her column, including those papers in liberal bastions like Shreveport LA and Sanford NC--have we really gotten to the point where faggot is considered a worse slur than, say, raghead? Coulter has used both, but it's faggot that has gotten her in trouble.

Take the poll.


I'd say it's all bunch of crap, grow ya skin thicker is what I saaaz!

Raghead to me is more offensive.

I'm just wondering, since the Coulter business came up and is now costing her some money--seven papers have now dropped her column, including those papers in liberal bastions like Shreveport LA and Sanford NC--have we really gotten to the point where faggot is considered a worse slur than, say, raghead? Coulter has used both, but it's faggot that has gotten her in trouble.

Take the poll.

I would say that they're both offensive, but the reason she's losing money over 'faggot' is because the gay rights groups are more visible. I suggest that Arab/Sikh groups, etc., step up their activism in order for both of these slurs to be treated the way they should be.

I'm just wondering, since the Coulter business came up and is now costing her some money--seven papers have now dropped her column, including those papers in liberal bastions like Shreveport LA and Sanford NC--have we really gotten to the point where faggot is considered a worse slur than, say, raghead? Coulter has used both, but it's faggot that has gotten her in trouble.

Take the poll.

it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

My assumption in this discussion is that it's meant as a slur in both cases.

They're just words. Wah.

They're just words. Wah.

See words are these things created to convey thoughts and feelings, while thoughts and feelings are not tied down and move over time as the language evolves there is always some connotation to the words

I agree that we should not restrict speech but saying they are "Just words" is dis-genuine they are also thought and feelings, at least the representation of such.

To me, "faggot" is more offensive than "raghead", for the sole reason that the latter seems so outlandish and obviously ludicrous and freshly thought up to quickly find a way to smear all "Arabs" that it's just something I think people laugh off. Which is probably not at all true, I just haven't ever heard it anywhere except in completely trollish posts on internet fora, hence I haven't even started to take it seriously, if that makes any sense. Then again, I obviously don't live in the US (or the UK) and don't know how often you actually encounter the word in everyday life.

Still, I'd have to go for "equally offensive", because the mindset behind it is the same.

I don't think I made much sense at all. <.<

My assumption in this discussion is that it's meant as a slur in both cases.

then it only depends on who says it I think. I would find it much worse to be called a fool by my mom than to be called a faggot by a total stranger.

I'd say Raghead is worse because its allot more prejudice than some closet case who is Susan on weekends

Course also Raghead is something which is more likely to get me angry even when its not aimed at me (though me getting called raghead would just confuse me)

I would say that they're both offensive, but the reason she's losing money over 'faggot' is because the gay rights groups are more visible. I suggest that Arab/Sikh groups, etc., step up their activism in order for both of these slurs to be treated the way they should be.

There's also the possibility that more people find it acceptable to slur Arabs than gays right now, or that this was just the final straw in a long line of incidents involving Coulter.

Yeah, but guess what? Some people are going to have those thoughts and feelings, and -- whoa! -- they might even express those thoughts and feelings.. Get over it. If you're so tiny of mind that you can't get past what others think of you, well, you're a pretty sad individual.

I agree to an extent you cant let what everyone says hurt you because they are assholes

That does not mean the slur is not offensive, that just means that you choose to move past it even if you are highly offended

See words are these things created to convey thoughts and feelings, while thoughts and feelings are not tied down and move over time as the language evolves there is always some connotation to the words

I agree that we should not restrict speech but saying they are "Just words" is dis-genuine they are also thought and feelings, at least the representation of such.

Yeah, but guess what? Some people are going to have those thoughts and feelings, and -- whoa! -- they might even express those thoughts and feelings.. Get over it. If you're so tiny of mind that you can't get past what others think of you, well, you're a pretty sad individual.

Raghead mm *thinks* is that the word used to point out the people who wear what looks like a tea towel on there heads or there some other meaning to it

I agree to an extent you cant let what everyone says hurt you because they are assholes

That does not mean the slur is not offensive, that just means that you choose to move past it even if you are highly offended


Sure, you can be offended, but suck it up, and show you're the better person.

I imagine they're equally as offensive to the groups they're directed at; I don't think there's an objective scale of offensiveness, so it's pretty much on a group by group basis.

Of course, given that I'm neither gay nor a Semitic Muslim, I can't say how offensive those terms are from their perspective.

Sure, you can be offended, but suck it up, and show you're the better person.

Nonetheless...'sucking it up' for me does not in any way preclude me from making a huge fucking stink if some asshole uses either of these terms in my hearing.

People should absolutely be called on their racism/homophobia/sexism/general idiocy.

It's the only way anyone can learn. And I would not stand by and just watch someone be verbally assaulted. Unless that person was you :p Yeah, I'm a bigot in my own ways.

Nonetheless...'sucking it up' for me does not in any way preclude me from making a huge fucking stink if some asshole uses either of these terms in my hearing.

People should absolutely be called on their racism/homophobia/sexism/general idiocy.

It's the only way anyone can learn. And I would not stand by and just watch someone be verbally assaulted. Unless that person was you :p Yeah, I'm a bigot in my own ways.

I agree though in todays society I think more emphasis should be placed on being polite rather then their word choice

Our continuing focus on the words them selfs (as in law) rather then the feelings they convey is a problem. Sure there are a list of bad words but we have not treated the disease just a symptom.

Not to say that some words are not offensive I just think we should also stress treating each other right in general.

Nonetheless...'sucking it up' for me does not in any way preclude me from making a huge fucking stink if some asshole uses either of these terms in my hearing.

People should absolutely be called on their racism/homophobia/sexism/general idiocy.

It's the only way anyone can learn. And I would not stand by and just watch someone be verbally assaulted. Unless that person was you :p Yeah, I'm a bigot in my own ways.

Why is it okay to call someone an asshole then? Isn't that offensive? Why does it somehow become more offensive if it's based on race, sexual preference, gender, etc.?

Unless that person was you :p Yeah, I'm a bigot in my own ways.

Cluichphobe. :p

Why is it okay to call someone an asshole then? Isn't that offensive? Why does it somehow become more offensive if it's based on race, sexual preference, gender, etc.?
Because calling someone an asshole means you're talking about their conduct or attitude, i.e. something they can change. A slur is based on something a person can't change. It's othering. It's demeaning a person based on noting more than who they are, and claims superiority over that person because of that. Big difference.

Why is it okay to call someone an asshole then? Isn't that offensive? Why does it somehow become more offensive if it's based on race, sexual preference, gender, etc.?

We all have assholes.

It's a term that transcends race, religion, socio-economic status and so on.

I like my insults to be inclusive.

i would have said faggot has always been worse seeing as how it refers to the burning of homosexuals, whereas raghead is just a dismissive reference to a mode of dress which is common in the middle east. or am i missing something about the word raghead?

i think the bigottry behind both words is equally offensive but the words themselves are not equal in offensiveness.

Not to say that some words are not offensive I just think we should also stress treating each other right in general.

Oh I agree.

And as crazy as it may sound, for the most part I'm amazingly diplomatic in real life:p

Because calling someone an asshole means you're talking about their conduct or attitude, i.e. something they can change. A slur is based on something a person can't change. It's othering. It's demeaning a person based on noting more than who they are, and claims superiority over that person because of that. Big difference.

Wah-wah.

We all have assholes.

It's a term that transcends race, religion, socio-economic status and so on.


Boohoo.

They're still just freakin' words.

"Ouch! Those naughty words hurt me!" :rolleyes:

Wah-wah.




Boohoo.

They're still just freakin' words.

"Ouch! Those naughty words hurt me!" :rolleyes:
Hey--you asked the difference, and there is one, whether you want to admit it or not. Empathy is a human trait, you know--you might try it sometime.

Hey--you asked the difference, and there is one, whether you want to admit it or not. Empathy is a human trait, you know--you might try it sometime.

And words are also just words. You might come to understand that sometime.

I find both terms equally (and highly) offensive.

I've heard the word 'raghead' used much more hatefully than I've ever heard 'faggot'.

And words are also just words. You might come to understand that sometime.

Dude--I'm a writer. Words are never just words.

I'm just wondering, since the Coulter business came up and is now costing her some money--seven papers have now dropped her column, including those papers in liberal bastions like Shreveport LA and Sanford NC--have we really gotten to the point where faggot is considered a worse slur than, say, raghead? Coulter has used both, but it's faggot that has gotten her in trouble.

Take the poll.Fuck, shit, cunts!

Pull your PC heads out of your PC assholes, thank you. It's not about which words people use to spew obnoxious shit. You can turn words into taboo 'til you die of old age, it'll have no impact on the level of vile shite Coulter & similar subhuman filth expell.

Keep this fucking nonsense up & all we'll be left with is insane authoritarian pundits with creative writing classes & a thesaurus - and the rest of us will be at a loss to speak out against them, 'cos you'll have made our vocabularies taboo.

Attack the shit she spews, not the words she uses to do it. She quite clearly presented herself as a crusty old homophobic **** while making a baseless personal attack against somebody she dislikes. Why the fuck does it matter if the word fag was used? Did the word turn her into a homophobic sack of stinking shit? Did it force her to dehumanize homos & some random politicus?

Ack.. Americans. I hope some day you'll impress me in a good way.

When I was a kid, I was taught the following mantra:

"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

At the time I thought it was just a melodic way of trying to encourage kids to not react and get into fights as a result of verbal taunting.

Later, I came to realize the real reason why this is a much wiser phrase than it might at first appear:

When you get riled up by words, you give power to those who are trying to hurt you with them. You make them more important than they are. The only use for such terms is to express derision or disrespect. Those feelings won't change if you silence the speaker and force them to abandon those words. The trick is to either change the anger that produces them, or take that person's power away by not allowing their words to injure you.

If you're gay and someone calls you a faggot, you have two options. You can get angry and morally outraged, in which case you've given the insulter power over you, the power to push your buttons--or you can ignore them, keep your perspective, and demonstrate that they have no power to harm you with their silly words.

If a 5 year old came up to you on the street and called you a dummy, would it harm you? No. Would you get angry? Probably not, since a 5 year old isn't necessarily expected to know any better. Well, if some person is juvenile enough to use those terms, why give them any greater dignity?

Dude--I'm a writer.

As am I.

Words are never just words.

Yes, they are. The readers take them however they decide to take them. If they choose to get their knickers in a wad over them? Well, that's their problem. They need to get over it.

When I was a kid, I was taught the following mantra:

"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

At the time I thought it was just a melodic way of trying to encourage kids to not react and get into fights as a result of verbal taunting.

Later, I came to realize the real reason why this is a much wiser phrase than it might at first appear:

When you get riled up by words, you give power to those who are trying to hurt you with them. You make them more important than they are. The only use for such terms is to express derision or disrespect. Those feelings won't change if you silence the speaker and force them to abandon those words. The trick is to either change the anger that produces them, or take that person's power away by not allowing their words to injure you.

If you're gay and someone calls you a faggot, you have two options. You can get angry and morally outraged, in which case you've given the insulter power over you, the power to push your buttons--or you can ignore them, keep your perspective, and demonstrate that they have no power to harm you with their silly words.

If a 5 year old came up to you on the street and called you a dummy, would it harm you? No. Would you get angry? Probably not, since a 5 year old isn't necessarily expected to know any better. Well, if some person is juvenile enough to use those terms, why give them any greater dignity?


QFT! (And, no, Sin, that doesn't mean I just queefed. :p )

I'm just wondering, since the Coulter business came up and is now costing her some money--seven papers have now dropped her column, including those papers in liberal bastions like Shreveport LA and Sanford NC--have we really gotten to the point where faggot is considered a worse slur than, say, raghead? Coulter has used both, but it's faggot that has gotten her in trouble.

Take the poll.

The problem isn't that one word is more offensive than any other, but that we find it acceptable to use them in public, at all. Bill Maher, Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps, etc, are all guilty of speech that "offends" someone. I'm not sure the offended parties are really all that offended; more likely they are privately celebrating that the other side -- the left, the right, the religious, the minority, is acting exactly the way they are supposed to act-- out of hatred.

Didn't your grandmother ever say "That's not nice"? That's what's missing from public speech today, the emphasis on decorum, manners, self-discipline, and decency. We really need someone's grandmother to stand up and say "Be nice", have everyone hang their heads in shame, and say "Yes, ma'am". Of course, that's another thing we've done away with -- shame. It's just about impossible to find someone that can feel bad about anything from being late to an appointment, "Traffic was terrible", not "Sorry I'm late", to capital crimes. It's tough to apologize.

Okay, I've had my turn and told you what I think is really wrong with political speech. Now, I'm really through.

When I was a kid <Snip>I still think my stream of obscenities was more appropriate, but damn it's nice to see not everyone's willing to jump on this pointless trend.

Then again, I suspect you're British.

we call smokes fags and some times poeple get called fag

I still think my stream of obscenities was more appropriate, but damn it's nice to see not everyone's willing to jump on this pointless trend.

Then again, I suspect you're British.

Thanks for the positive feedback, but nope, not British. More like a mutt half Latino and half Hillbilly.

That doesn't really make sense. You can't say which is more offensive when they're completely unrelated. I guess, if you were a gay Muslim, then you'd be especially offended. Even though I am neither gay nor Muslim (only they should determine what is offensive to them), I think that both would be considered incredibly offensive; Coulter shouldn't even have a job anymore.

The problem isn't that one word is more offensive than any other, but that we find it acceptable to use them in public, at all. Bill Maher, Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps, etc, are all guilty of speech that "offends" someone. I'm not sure the offended parties are really all that offended; more likely they are privately celebrating that the other side -- the left, the right, the religious, the minority, is acting exactly the way they are supposed to act-- out of hatred.

Didn't your grandmother ever say "That's not nice"? That's what's missing from public speech today, the emphasis on decorum, manners, self-discipline, and decency. We really need someone's grandmother to stand up and say "Be nice", have everyone hang their heads in shame, and say "Yes, ma'am". Of course, that's another thing we've done away with -- shame. It's just about impossible to find someone that can feel bad about anything from being late to an appointment, "Traffic was terrible", not "Sorry I'm late", to capital crimes. It's tough to apologize.

Okay, I've had my turn and told you what I think is really wrong with political speech. Now, I'm really through.

QFT

The problem isn't that one word is more offensive than any other, but that we find it acceptable to use them in public, at all. Bill Maher, Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps, etc, are all guilty of speech that "offends" someone. I'm not sure the offended parties are really all that offended; more likely they are privately celebrating that the other side -- the left, the right, the religious, the minority, is acting exactly the way they are supposed to act-- out of hatred.

Didn't your grandmother ever say "That's not nice"? That's what's missing from public speech today, the emphasis on decorum, manners, self-discipline, and decency. We really need someone's grandmother to stand up and say "Be nice", have everyone hang their heads in shame, and say "Yes, ma'am". Of course, that's another thing we've done away with -- shame. It's just about impossible to find someone that can feel bad about anything from being late to an appointment, "Traffic was terrible", not "Sorry I'm late", to capital crimes. It's tough to apologize.

Okay, I've had my turn and told you what I think is really wrong with political speech. Now, I'm really through.I think this is actually the very first time I agree with you on something, anything.

And words are also just words. You might come to understand that sometime.

IF words were just words you wouldn't be so adament to use these words.

If words were just words, frankly, we'd still be sitting in circles banging rocks on other rocks.

All the back patters are actually missing something, attack her use of the word 'faggot' or 'raghead' is attacking what she is saying because it is attacking her intent. You've narrowed your own focus to believe that it's simply an attempt to remove the word and lost your own track of why people are upset in your rush to defend words. In the end you just come off sounding more like self-rightious dicks than the people your calling self-rightious dicks.

In the end you just come off sounding more like self-rightious dicks than the people your calling self-rightious dicks.

Well, first off, it's "you're." But to continue, how is calling me a self-righteous dick and worse than me calling you...oh, say, an ignorant fucking window-licker? No difference really. You know why? Because they're just words. I laugh at yours, and if you've got any skin at all, you laugh at mine. As I've said more times than I can count, grow some skin.

I think 'raghead' is more offensive, and I think coulter has faced such trouble over 'faggot' because she called a presidential candidate a faggot.

Just because a person may find a particular word or phrase offensive that doesn't mean the other person shouldn't have the right to say such things. I don't always agree with things people say but they can say any of those words and think anything they want freely just as I can.

Well, first off, it's "you're." But to continue, how is calling me a self-righteous dick and worse than me calling you...oh, say, an ignorant fucking window-licker? No difference really. You know why? Because they're just words. I laugh at yours, and if you've got any skin at all, you laugh at mine. As I've said more times than I can count, grow some skin.
Meh, you caught a bad edit. I don't need your class to graduate, so I'm good.

Because that's an assessment of you and your own dickishness and not a marginalization of an entire group to create an 'otherness'. But that's been explained to you, you're just too thick headed to understand. And in certain respects it isn't okay to call you a prick or a self absorbed fuck. In certain situations I would get called out rightfully for pointing out that you're a colossal ass.

But in your dickheaded fervor to defend assholery you have forgotten that people have the same protection and right to call you on assholery, to in fact call a shitheaded little punk on being a shitheaded little punk.

And frankly that's all that's happening here.

And since these are 'all just words' to you, none of this should get your dander up.

this is getting almost more attention-this terrible word-than the unknown,un-named asshole that assaulted her and tried to throw a pie in her face.

We really should have a list of words we cannot utter. :rolleyes:

We already have a list of behavior thats not allowed,including assault.

this is getting almost more attention-this terrible word-than the unknown,un-named asshole that assaulted her and tried to throw a pie in her face.

We really should have a list of words we cannot utter. :rolleyes:

We already have a list of behavior thats not allowed,including assault.


The fine men of operation al-pieda were found out and expelled from their college. Had they known that would happen, they should have thrown shit.

The problem is that a good chunk of the people attacking her words are NOT interested in her intent. They hear words like "faggot" or "raghead" and the reaction is instantaneous, reflexive. Nobody takes the time to red such words in context or to find out the reason they're uttered. Ironically, it's precisely because they're just words that this is possible. The real motivation and meaning behind words is all to often ignored, as anyone who has posted on this forum more than two times has found out.

I don't find that to be the case, unless you can come up with a convincing textual evidence that she intended sunshine and roses with her comment or that people would have somehow been happier if she had just called Edwards 'homosexual.'

IF words were just words you wouldn't be so adament to use these words.

If words were just words, frankly, we'd still be sitting in circles banging rocks on other rocks.

All the back patters are actually missing something, attack her use of the word 'faggot' or 'raghead' is attacking what she is saying because it is attacking her intent. You've narrowed your own focus to believe that it's simply an attempt to remove the word and lost your own track of why people are upset in your rush to defend words. In the end you just come off sounding more like self-rightious dicks than the people your calling self-rightious dicks.

The problem is that a good chunk of the people attacking her words are NOT interested in her intent. They hear words like "faggot" or "raghead" and the reaction is instantaneous, reflexive. Nobody takes the time to red such words in context or to find out the reason they're uttered. Ironically, it's precisely because they're just words that this is possible. The real motivation and meaning behind words is all to often ignored, as anyone who has posted on this forum more than two times has found out.

The fine men of operation al-pieda were found out and expelled from their college. Had they known that would happen, they should have thrown shit.

Is that true? I had never heard that happened.

I guess,if you dont like the speaker,its alright to advocate assault against them?
Thats how people deal with an opposing viewpoint?

There's also the possibility that more people find it acceptable to slur Arabs than gays right now, or that this was just the final straw in a long line of incidents involving Coulter.I suppose that it could be the latter, but if it's the former, I believe it's because of a lack of visibility. It's easy to hate the Muslims when you don't know any, and if they're out of sight by not being visible, this adds to it.

I don't find that to be the case, unless you can come up with a convincing textual evidence that she intended sunshine and roses with her comment or that people would have somehow been happier if she had just called Edwards 'homosexual.'

Who cares what Coulter meant? She claims she wasn't using it to mean homosexuality. I say that's BS. All of it is beside the point. The point is even if she DID somehow mean somethign else or, if you don't like this example there are millions of others out there, where people kneejerk an offended reaction so fast any meaning that may or may not have been there gets lost.

The problem is that a good chunk of the people attacking her words are NOT interested in her intent. They hear words like "faggot" or "raghead" and the reaction is instantaneous, reflexive. Nobody takes the time to red such words in context or to find out the reason they're uttered. Ironically, it's precisely because they're just words that this is possible. The real motivation and meaning behind words is all to often ignored, as anyone who has posted on this forum more than two times has found out.

This is not like the word handicapped what other current meaning does raghead stand for? Is there any context where it would have benign intent?

Who cares what Coulter meant? She claims she wasn't using it to mean homosexuality. I say that's BS. All of it is beside the point. The point is even if she DID somehow mean somethign else or, if you don't like this example there are millions of others out there, where people kneejerk an offended reaction so fast any meaning that may or may not have been there gets lost.

Call those situations out, then. This doesn't appear to be one of them.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen (I remember a case of a professor getting canned for using a word that people thought had a root in a racial slur but instead just sounded like it did, don't remember the word). Call those cases out. This is just an asshole getting called on being an asshole (Coulter).

Call those situations out, then. This doesn't appear to be one of them.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen (I remember a case of a professor getting canned for using a word that people thought had a root in a racial slur but instead just sounded like it did, don't remember the word).Probably "niggardly".

Probably "niggardly".

Sounds about right. Those instances is when yeah, I'll say people are just a little hair triggered. But people calling out Coulter? No, thats pretty much on the mark.

This is not like the word handicapped what other current meaning does raghead stand for? Is there any context where it would have benign intent?

You're missing the point here, and that's probably because we're using a bad example. I'm not now, nor have I ever defended this example, but I'm using it because it's the one everybody wants to talk about.

Who cares what Coulter meant? She claims she wasn't using it to mean homosexuality. I say that's BS. All of it is beside the point. The point is even if she DID somehow mean somethign else or, if you don't like this example there are millions of others out there, where people kneejerk an offended reaction so fast any meaning that may or may not have been there gets lost.

You're missing the point here, and that's probably because we're using a bad example. I'm not now, nor have I ever defended this example, but I'm using it because it's the one everybody wants to talk about.

I agree it is the worst case

I agree that meaning should have much much more emphasis then word choice

But it some contexts there just are no other meanings ... at least not likely ones and you have to assume that the word more then likely conveyed the standard meaning

Yes context can change words meanings emensly but at some point there are some things that just dont mean anything else reasonably.

Probably "niggardly".

There was a case here in DC a few years ago where a guy working in the Mayor's office used that term in some kind of spending report and a co-worker got all offended and demanded an apology. The writer refused, saying that he used the word perfectly according it its dictionary definition and had nothing whatsoever to do with race. As I recall, he lost his job over it because he refused to apologize.

Tha scary thing about this case was that the offended woman knew the definition of the word niggardly, either previously or as a result of the incident. She continued to demand an apology anyway just because she still felt offended and that was, to her, reason enough.

There was a case here in DC a few years ago where a guy working in the Mayor's office used that term in some kind of spending report and a co-worker got all offended and demanded an apology. The writer refused, saying that he used the word perfectly according it its dictionary definition and had nothing whatsoever to do with race. As I recall, he lost his job over it because he refused to apologize.

Tha scary thing about this case was that the offended woman knew the definition of the word niggardly, either previously or as a result of the incident. She continued to demand an apology anyway just because she still felt offended and that was, to her, reason enough.

This is unimaginable !!!

I agree it is the worst case

I agree that meaning should have much much more emphasis then word choice

But it some contexts there just are no other meanings ... at least not likely ones and you have to assume that the word more then likely conveyed the standard meaning

Yes context can change words meanings emensly but at some point there are some things that just dont mean anything else reasonably.

Certainly. No one here is advocating that brits stop calling cigarettes 'fags.' Context is being taken into account.

I agree it is the worst case

I agree that meaning should have much much more emphasis then word choice

But it some contexts there just are no other meanings ... at least not likely ones and you have to assume that the word more then likely conveyed the standard meaning

Yes context can change words meanings emensly but at some point there are some things that just dont mean anything else reasonably.

I agree, but that gets us back to the original point where people who get offended and upset are the ones validating those words. The knee-jerk phenomena is a side effect. Words like "faggot" have no power unless we give power to them.

In terms of what people would consider "hate speech" I've been called (and yeah this is a weird list but I'm a mutt, remember...) "spick" "wetback" "redneck" "ridge runner" "hillbilly" "hick" "gringo" "nutjob" "cultist" and so on and so on.

I refuse to allow those words, or anyone using them against me, to have power over me. My feelings and reactions are under my control alone, just like everybody else. By getting upset and offended I only allow someone else to control my feelings, and that's just unacceptable.

Do I sometimes slip? Yeah, sometimes, when I expect higher standards from people than to resort to name-calling I become disappointed and frustrated, but that's different. It's a case where I expect others to hold to a standard of civility that they just can't or won't adhere to. That's beside the point, though.