Use of derogatory names for politicians and groups of people

[Dill]

(03-07-2024, 06:34 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I mean...if you want? I don't see the purpose in it, but I don't think anyone identifies with Hamas, so there's little danger of offending or upsetting someone.
Now, if you call Palestinians or Palestinian supporters terrorist dogs because of some perceived association with Hamas, that's where you'll start to get in trouble.

C-Dawg, I have some questions and concerns.

What about giving oneself permission to call other forum members "terrorist supporters" because of some "perceived association with Hamas"? Or to call
them "ISIS supporters" or "racists" or "antisemites" on the grounds it's not personal attack if its true, and then simply declaring "it's true!"?

My main concerns are about the "offending or upsetting" criterion. Some are upset by accurate news about their favorite politicians or countries; consequently they want to ban topics and different perspectives and to delete threads and otherwise control discussion thereof.  
Some make no distinction between historical, scholarly or social-scientific comparisons between groups and direct slander. It's all just "personal attack."

When that occurs, I'm pretty sure that different ideals and principles are at issue. Some prioritize close reading, observation and analysis before
judgement; others prioritize ideology--judgment should come first to protect and guide analysis, reading etc.

We are living in a country in which someone who tried to stay in power by overturning a fair election now has a fair chance of regaining that power.
Given that extraordinary and unprecedented fact, it doesn't make sense to forbid discussion of cult-behavior or authoritarianism in our politics because 
it may "upset" someone.  E.g., if there is a clinical definition of "cult" behavior which was set down before the MAGA movement, and some MAGA behavior can be demonstrated to square with it, that ought to be allowed, even if it upsets. Those upset are free to demonstrate why it doesn't square, if they can.

I tend to agree with Bels here, that deploying formal definitions of political behavior, and then showing how a politician or group's behavior does or does
not align with such, is the stuff of rational political discussion. It is different from name calling or simply arguing with labels.  If someone tries to prevent
that sort of analysis/discussion from going forward, I'd like the freedom to push back, to argue why, in a democracy, we ought to allow the close
reading/observation/analysis model to operate, without subject to deflection or censorship on grounds it is "upsetting."