I am coming to the conclusion that adding "ist" to a word is just a lame attempt to cut off dialog by branding the opponent with a smear. It is, when one comes right down to it, an attempt to avoid an argument's force by resorting to a fallacy. Think about it. How many times have you heard somebody shut down another person merely by using the term "racist" for any argument that touches upon race (and sometimes does not even touch upon race)? More recently, you see "fascist" thrown around a lot, mainly by people who do not really know what that word means, but nonetheless throw it out there. On this forum we do not have the kind of people who throw around words like racist and fascist, for the most part. I see it most frequently here adding ist after state, statist.
Amen to most...we definitely do "have the kind of people who throw around words like racist and fascist" in regards to some however. Good morning and Happy Easter, albeit a little belatedly.
It is becoming more common. I notice it on other sites more often. Apparently I'm a racist because I'm progun. Even though gun control is racist. Boggles my mind.
It seems to be a common practice by many to label people with some type of negative marker, to 1) put them on the defensive 2) devalue their viewpoint and 3) avoid an actual debate on the merits of the real issue. I see this more with the liberal progressive/SJW crowd, but that may just be a personal bias of mine. It is always great to see someone like Ben Shapiro beat them back with facts and turn the conversation around. When I hear someone applying labels to people like racist, sexist, etc. I generally believe that there is little value in listening to their viewpoint as they have a bias that will prevent them from evaluating facts and opposing viewpoints honestly.
And I would venture to say that 90% of people couldn't accurately DEFINE the -ist terms, either...especially RACISSSSSTTTT!!!!!
It stinks when I think I make a serious point and then half a dozen or so responses are funny enough to make me laugh out loud. Nobody can deny we have a witty bunch here.
categorization is useful for differentiating when debating. without that discrimination, the process would be pointless. some folks don't like to be categorized. you might ask yourself why the latter is true, rather than trying to discount its usefulness. have you ever classified a group of people for the sake of argument? anti-gunners perhaps? did some of them protest, even though it was true? have you ever heard, "i'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment" from someone trying to infringe on your freedom to bear arms? why do you think that is? they simply don't like the reality of what they are doing to be brought to light. i think the same is true for statists, those that support the existence of government. i think it's embarrassing to be reminded, especially today where people are continuously made aware of the evil that government does, that they are the ones ultimately responsible for it. MP, you are a statist. if you don't like that, you are free to change it. until you do, i will continue to classify you as such, because it's an accurate descriptor and useful language. get back to me when i call you a crappy dresser'ist, or something.
I admit to using the term statist quite a bit but only when it's accurate. I rarely use it here because I don't bother with those debates here. I think the overall point is accurate though. People who can't compete in the arena of ideas seek to shut down debate before they get destroyed. "He's a racist, I don't have to even acknowledge his existence!" I don't think I do that when I say someone is a statist and I don't even mean it as an insult, necessarily. To me, statist means you believe in The State. You believe that government is legitimate to one degree or another. That's it. The fascist one is really amusing because you see people from across the political spectrum accuse other people from across the spectrum of being a fascist. I think the new technical definition of fascism is - "that which I don't like".
People want to think in binary: either you're 100% in agreement with me or you're my enemy, and I will label you as such and oppose you. Obviously the left does it, but let's not kid ourselves that we ("we" being the right, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, pro-gun people, what have you) don't do the same thing. There are plenty of threads here describing our "anti-gun" governor (not exactly an "-ist", but pretty close). "Gun-grabbist"? Anyway...in Deal's 6.5 years in office he has signed several bills that advance gun rights in Georgia and absolutely nothing that would hurt gun rights has passed. I doubt the Momzz or Bloomberg or any actual anti-gun group would consider Deal remotely anti-gun, since they've gotten absolutely nothing they want from him*. But we haven't gotten everything we've wanted, and that's partially due to Deal not agreeing 100% with us, and so it's easier to describe him as an enemy. Right upthread, we have a poster calling everyone who doesn't oppose the existence of government a "statist". No difference whatsoever between a Jeffersonian republic and a Kim-Jong-Unian dictatorship. Either you agree with him exactly on everything or you're in the "other" camp. The all or nothing approach is a great plan if you're satisfied with getting nothing and complaining about it. It's singularly ineffective in actually getting some of what you want, especially when there are people who want the opposite and are willing to compromise to move the ball in their direction. GCO figured this out ~10 years ago and has made huge strides. GGO hasn't (possibly intentionally) and hasn't done much except tick off the people who can decide whether or not to help them. *-They got campus carry vetoed last year, but all that means is that the law remained as it has been for however many decades or centuries campus carry has been banned here. The actual anti-gunners maintained the status quo in one specific area. Not much of a win compared to what GCO has achieved in the past decade.