Allow me to share with you my perspective--you know from our conversations that I was a liberal leftist for years before my awakening. It was very typical and common for lls (liberal leftists, so I don't have to keep spelling it out) to resort to name calling such as "bigot", "racist" when the debate got hot, even when the topic at hand was not at all race-related! It was a way to shut your opponent down by forcing him to back away from the subject and explain why he was not a "racist".
Name calling (bigot, racist) is just not an effective debate technique, even if you think it fits your opponent(s), and you're not just using it as a way to shut them down . Surely there are better, more intellectually honest ways to make one's point? Name calling is also an emotional, irrational response--I understand this is a hot button subject, but we must try to keep the debate as civil as possible. We've all been guilty of going for the jugular, (moi aussi!) but it does lessen the quality of our arguments.
"Bigot" and "racist", to me, are code words for "I don't have anything better to offer". Again, my background has given me a particular aversion to using such labels even in a heated discussion.
I've seen people banned for overusage of these terms, so there must be some agreement on this topic at the higher echelons of FR.
Carry on...
(hops off soapbox)
If it's mere name-calling, then I agree with you 100%; it is, indeed, a prime ll tactic.
However, that's part of my point. The lls have so effectively won the language battles that they have changed our terminology, its implications, and the political battlefield itself. If the term "bigot" is appropriate, I believe it should be used, regardless of negative connotations. And if the negative connotations are appropriate, then perhaps those who are acting like bigots should reconsider their actions.
When Kretek points out the bigotry, to say "don't call names" is like saying a criminal shouldn't be accused of a crime "burglar," "murderer," etc. If the label fits...