Attention: Any EARNEST use in political discussion of the following terms brands the user an idiot

To start with, from the RW side:

death panel
glow-ball warming
Democrat Party
Essentially, any disparaging variation on “Democrats”
From the LW side:

Essentially, any disparaging variation on “Republicans”

And . . . that’s about it. “Teabagger” might be in poor taste but is not idiotic. “Teahadist” is just too kewl to be idiotic. Any use of “bigots” might be a real subject for debate and might sometimes be idiotic but does not by itself brand the user an idiot.

Godwinization is sui generis.

“Fascist” is probably idiotic-by-default but does not, by itself, constitute Godwinization. But it’s always a mark of idiocy, and dishonesty too, when RWs use it to describe anything on the left.

Anything I forgot to list?

Any sentence containing both “Clinton” and “blow job” is unlikely to lead to productive discourse. (Except the first sentence in this post, naturally.)

Variants on dhimmitude would be acceptable in context of non-muslims being second-class citizens in Muslim countries (a context it almost never has). Since even if this happens in America it would not be until long after those who worry about it are dead, it is inappropriate to discussions of America’s relationship with Islam.


In a generic sense:

“Thrown under the bus”
“All eyes on…”
“Civil discourse” (fuck that).

Any mention whatsoever of the Kardashians.*
*I know, they don’t usually come up in political discussion but I am tired of seeing references to and/or photos of these horrendously plasticky-looking, useless humanoids.

No . . . not, I think, idiotic. “Pubs” and “Dems” certainly are not idiotic, merely shorthand.


Could be worse.

Could be Sarah Jessica Parker.


Seriously, just grow the fuck up and go back to 3rd grade already.

Also, “tighty-righty”.

“Anti-choice” or “anti-life”.


“Tard” conjoined with any political/ideological designation.

“Corporate lackeys” in any context except to designate media organizations, pundits, scientists, etc., that are actually and literally paid to promote corporations’ positions.

“Liberal elite”.

“Confederacy” to refer to the modern southern US.

Honey, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Agreed. Or “pro-life.” The non-idiotic phrase would be “anti-abortion.” Everyone who is not omnicidal is “pro-life.”

NARAL, OTOH, is properly “pro-choice,” not “pro-abortion” – that is, does not regard abortion as a duty or an end-in-itself. But to the other side, stopping abortion is an end-in-itself, therefore, “anti-abortion.”

Not a chance.

You left off “socialist.”

(Unless you’re including it as an understood variation of “Democrats.” :D)

I’ve heard that the Kardashians are all Islamofascists, every last one of them.

I was trying to omit any term that has legitimate non-idiotic uses.

However, in the U.S. at present, if you see the word “socialist” used by, or of, anyone other than a self-ID’d socialist, it is probably being used idiotically.

:confused: You made that one up, right? I live in Florida and I’ve never heard anyone say, “Here in the Confederacy . . .”

More like, “Down there in the Confederacy…”

It doesn’t come up much anymore now, but a couple of years ago, any use of the name “Shrub” got me all rolly-eyed.

There are many who are pro-choice who are anti-abortion. So just go with pro-life and pro-choice, since those are what each group uses for themselves.