I missed the airing of grievances this year, so here goes.
While I find myself internally nodding in agreement with most of the epithets and hemi-demi-semi-portmanteaus I see describing GOP extremists and Trump-loyalists (e.g. MAGAts, redumblicans, repugnicans, etc.) I can't help but feel that their use by people who disagree with them is stooping.
Degrading the discourse.
It's fun. It 'feels' good, but we promote the idiocracy by joining in.
Is it only me? Feel free to discuss/disagree.
@codeWhisperer
Not disagreeing, just curious… how about the terms nazi and fascist? How about, "un-American, " or, "traitor?" Are these also dumming down the conversation? And if not, then where do we draw the line?
I wonder if the term maggot is as appropriate as the term nazi
@justsaywhy @codeWhisperer
Unless someone literally considers themselves a Nazi, it’s more productive to criticize the beliefs or actions, even if it is with SPECIFIC comparisons to the Third Reich. “How did they sink so far and how did it start?” is a critical question. “Everyone I don’t like is Hitler” makes it easy to dismiss that question with straw man arguments. Liberals need to rein in the extremists on the Left because they ultimately undercut our arguments.