[Gondring]

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...

[ariamne]

We have moved beyond dictionary definitions, though, and have to deal with these words in the spirit in which they are, unfortunately, currently used. I do believe the left has effectively "won" this language battle, it has been their modus operandi for quite some time. So we need to move beyond this simplistic dismissal of another's viewpoint and I think it reflects well on conservatives to do so.

When a person is convicted of a murder, there is nothing prejudicial about about calling him a murderer; impirical evidence has been produced that led 12 fellow citizens to come to this conclusion.

But calling someone a bigot under the circumstances of this type of highly charged debate doesn't advance the name-caller, nor does it lend credence to his position; quite the opposite. The label only fits in the mind of the beholder aka the accuser. Kretek's mere labeling of A.A.C. a bigot does not make it so--and we would be less than clear thinkers if we accepted his label at face value; let him cite his reasons for coming to that conclusion; chapter and verse.

Because these emotionally charged words like racist and bigot have been coopted by the left, it becomes even more incumbent upon conservatives not to to throw them around lightly.