Agreed. They don’t really know what they’re doing, except it’s deliberately mispronouncing a proper name and it annoys some people.
I don’t care that someone mangles a political party’s name. But it makes them a defiant toddler and I will freely describe that situation in accurate language.
Moreover, circling back to the OP, I think it’s appropriate to ban defiant toddlers who state that they don’t understand that they’re defiant toddlers.
It can be both at once, ya know.
Urban Dictionary:
Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is “in the know” will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words.
So, someone who is naive` wouldn’t think twice about the apparent typo [/semantics] in question. But to fellow conservatives, they will be wholly knowledgeable about what is really being implied by said term.
Which yes also makes it trolling.
What is being implied?
And has anyone in this thread (other than me) acknowledged that internet messege board posters using insulting names for the Republicans is not really the same thing as the highest office in the land, and his party leaders using a third grade level insult fot the Democratic party? This dumb shit comes from the top for Republicans, not mere drunken internet button pushers.
Apologies to Kron, who, golly, just don’t get it.
That the Dems aren’t a legitmate political party, that they don’t actually believe in what the original name means.
I can’t believe that I have to explain that to people here, esp. after several other posters upthread made that clear to all.
For what it’s worth, I flagged this post in P&E
And got this reply
I was not suggesting we couldn’t call people like Trump (or Biden) silly and/or insulting names. That’s not trolling, just venting. I see no problem whatsoever calling Trump, Biden, or any other public figure an asshole or buffoon, or traitor.
From what I can see, you flagged a post for no discernible reason and got told that there was no problem with it. There’s nothing about this unsurprising fact that has any relevance to the OP or to this thread.
Trump has been called more different insulting names on this board and many others, both inside and outside the Pit, than perhaps any other single individual. Hell, he’s been called worse things by his own former senior staff – “a fucking moron” (Sec of State Rex Tillerson); “…has the intellect of a fifth- or sixth-grader” (Sec of Defense James Mattis).
What the OP is talking about is a systematic attempt to modify legitimate language for the sole purpose of being gratuitously offensive, with the intent of promoting its widespread use. If you can’t see this very basic difference I don’t think I can help you any further.
Thank you for your interest…
I flagged it based on the discussion in this thread as a sort of test case to see if calling the President by an insulting name outside of the pit was still acceptable to the mods.
I did get the answer that I thought I would. Doesn’t make it right, just non actionable.
IMHO any who uses insulting sobriquets in debate deserves zero credence.
As you are probably aware,the use of the term “democrat party” is also not actionable here.
If it’s your writing and debating style to use only the correct formal names for public figures, even if you intensely dislike them, then more power to you. No one will object. But there has also never been a problem on this board with using creative insulting names for public figures, as long as it’s not hate speech such as blatant racism.
You’re still missing the point, though. And your quoted statement is absolutely wrong, because some of the most brilliant insults I’ve seen have been from posters with some of the most informed insights and hence high credibility.
The points you’re missing are encapsulated in the words “gratuitous” and “systematic”.
To take the example of Trump, and my insulting term that you considered some kind of test case: some time ago there was a poster who insisted on always referring to Trump by what was presumed to be the original family name before it was changed, “Drumpf”. It was gratuitious and repetitive. It was also pointless and eventually annoying, and although there were no warnings AFAIK, there was eventually a pinned mod note to cut it out, because it was stupid. This is the more appropriate analogy to “democrat” as an adjective, IMHO.
The old “everybody does it” defense, well played.
We also used to tolerate mild misogyny, homophobia and calling people “retards”.
Things change.
No, it isn’t. No more than “house cat” is grammatically insulting. Or insulting in any way to houses. Or cats. At least, none of them have objected. I presume they simply do not deign to acknowledge it. Does that make them smarter than Democratics?
She was referring to cases where a noun is used in place of an adjective. Obviously that wouldn’t apply to cases where the noun and the adjective are the same. But I’m guessing you knew that, given your joking reference to “Democratics.”
"Look, I had a lovely dinner, and all I said to my wife was, “That piece of halibut was good enough for the Democrat party…”
“HE SAID IT AGAIN!”
Excellent reference, given your user name!
Heh. It took me a second to get it.
On another thread, I’m watching somebody gleefully using the term “leftist.”
Is it reasonable to suggest that we ought not to refer to others, here, in terms that the others wouldn’t use in referring to themselves ?
Should “fascist” be the conservative equivalent of “leftist,” then ?
I seek the Wisdom of Crowds 
To my ears, “leftist” isn’t anywhere near as pejorative as "fascist.’
“Leftist” is the equivalent of “right-wing” and neither is IMO pejorative.
The equivalent of “fascist” would be more like “Leninist”.