The only downside to this I can think of, and it is kind of a bad one, is that it incentivizes one to actually be the thing associated with the name calling, or to adopt an identity related to a slur or name, and so make oneself immune to criticism. For instance, people lately have claimed that invoking George Soros as a bad actor is rea…
The only downside to this I can think of, and it is kind of a bad one, is that it incentivizes one to actually be the thing associated with the name calling, or to adopt an identity related to a slur or name, and so make oneself immune to criticism. For instance, people lately have claimed that invoking George Soros as a bad actor is really antisemitism, so suddenly blaming him for anything (like funding a slew of district attorneys who actively refuse to prosecute crime) is off limits. Calling some DA "a George Soros funded leftist" is deemed anti-Semitic name calling, when in fact it is literally true, and Soros' religion is entirely irrelevant to the matter.
Or in a more extreme instance, imagine a foreign terrorist type moves to the United States and runs for Congress. Their opponent (or opposing essayist) says "We can't elect this person, they are a known terrorist!" and is roundly shamed for name calling, when in fact it is true.
Now, that is perhaps a bit of a farfetched concern, which really comes down to "It isn't slander (or name calling) if it is true", but that is a strangely difficult point to get agreement on. Even getting to people to agree on general labels is super difficult; the leftists came up with "woke" themselves, then demanded everyone stopped using it when it caught on and it started making them look bad, for instance.
Still, I absolutely agree that much name calling really is just emotionally driven us vs them behavior and could be profitably excised.
The only downside to this I can think of, and it is kind of a bad one, is that it incentivizes one to actually be the thing associated with the name calling, or to adopt an identity related to a slur or name, and so make oneself immune to criticism. For instance, people lately have claimed that invoking George Soros as a bad actor is really antisemitism, so suddenly blaming him for anything (like funding a slew of district attorneys who actively refuse to prosecute crime) is off limits. Calling some DA "a George Soros funded leftist" is deemed anti-Semitic name calling, when in fact it is literally true, and Soros' religion is entirely irrelevant to the matter.
Or in a more extreme instance, imagine a foreign terrorist type moves to the United States and runs for Congress. Their opponent (or opposing essayist) says "We can't elect this person, they are a known terrorist!" and is roundly shamed for name calling, when in fact it is true.
Now, that is perhaps a bit of a farfetched concern, which really comes down to "It isn't slander (or name calling) if it is true", but that is a strangely difficult point to get agreement on. Even getting to people to agree on general labels is super difficult; the leftists came up with "woke" themselves, then demanded everyone stopped using it when it caught on and it started making them look bad, for instance.
Still, I absolutely agree that much name calling really is just emotionally driven us vs them behavior and could be profitably excised.