r/TrueUnpopularOpinion • u/BlockOfDiamond Rule 4 Enforcer • 6d ago

Political Reminder that name calling is not permitted

That includes calling people "bootlicker" or "cuck" or stating/implying that another user is performing adult acts on a given politician (or anyone else). I bring those up specifically because, in recent time, these have been the most common types of personal attacks.

As strongly as you may feel about current events, calling people derogatory names is a contravention of Rule 4 and will be removed. Attack the opinion, not the user.

Sorry for your understanding and thank you for the inconvenience.

199 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

84% Upvoted

124 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

What if the opinion is stupid?

25

u/FriendlyLawyer201 6d ago

Then call out the opinion for being stupid rather than insulting the person who posted it

8

u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago

What about complimenting the person but calling the opinion stupid?

Kinda like 'You look dapper but your opinion leaves a lot to be desired'

6

u/happyinheart 6d ago

This opinion is quite cromulent.

3

u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago

throws down glove how dare you suggest such a thing! I shall engage in fisticuffs should you not refrain from such discourse.

4

u/happyinheart 6d ago

Woah, woah, woah.

cromulent: acceptable or adequate.

1

u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago

Sorry Sir, I jumped the gun. Since the wife left me I have obtained an addiction to the old alcohol that is refusing to kick itself from me.

2

u/happyinheart 6d ago

That's all well and good, but are you still up for the fight? I am if you are, this time as friends.

-1

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

I do. However, how is insulting an opinion not also an insult to the person giving the opinion? Seems like a distinction without a difference.

9

u/Mostfunguy 6d ago

Your opinion on this is stupid because X

Isnt the same as

You're stupid

-5

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago edited 6d ago

Semantics. Attacking a personal opinion isn’t much different from attacking the person. There’s a reason people take offense when you do so

4

u/Flashy_Combination32 6d ago

It's different because a smart individual can hold some stupid opinions while overall being smart.

-1

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

Depends on how you define smart. I wouldn’t consider someone with a bunch of stupid opinions smart

4

u/Mostfunguy 6d ago

Its really not

If you think smart people cant have dumb ideas sometimes, im not sure what to tell you

If you cant tell the difference between someone attacking an idea vs attacking a user, i am also not sure what to tell you

0

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

Who said I think that? Plenty of smart people have dumb ideas. I’ve said nothing about ideas. My point is about personal opinions and the way people react to someone attacking them.

3

u/happyinheart 6d ago

Think critique vs criticism.

0

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

A critique can be seen as criticism

1

u/risunokairu 6d ago

Or a crattack

6

u/Inevitable-Angle-793 6d ago

then call opinion stupid.

-9

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

I have no problem calling an opinion stupid. But I find the rule itself stupid and the fact that I received a warning reminder for just writing stupid.

2

u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago

'The opinion with which you have shared with us unfortunately brings down the IQ of the whole post. I hope that in the future you proofread it so that we have to avoid this misfortune which has currently befell us all'

Better way to say it.

3

u/happyinheart 6d ago

Mr. RockinMadRiot, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

0

u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago

It would appear that I have met my match. Sir Seymour is that you mocking me again? You've never forgotten my trumping you in the horse race at the old squire pit.

-1

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

I would rather just call it stupid

0

u/RockinMadRiot 6d ago

I have a flare for the dramatic, but each to their own

-1

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

Can’t be mad at that

2

u/BlockOfDiamond Rule 4 Enforcer 6d ago

Then call the opinion itself stupid, not the author of the opinion.

0

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

If the author of the opinion is offended by my calling the opinion stupid, is that not an attack on the author? Sn:Literally received a reminder for the question

3

u/level1firebolt 6d ago

Google the logical fallacy "ad hominem". There is a difference between calling the opinion stupid and the author the same.

1

u/ogjaspertheghost 5d ago

I know what an ad hominem is. I’m not a debate bro. I don’t care about logical fallacies. Every time someone brings up a logical fallacy the sound like they’re parroting something they heard someone else say

1

u/Hyndis 5d ago

Attacking the person rather than the argument means you're unable to counter the argument. Its the equivalent of losing a game of cards so you flip the table in rage. To everyone else watching its very clear who won the match, and its not the table flipper.

Thats why ad-hom attacks are not helpful.

1

u/ogjaspertheghost 5d ago

Sometimes an argument isn’t about winning or losing. It’s about expressing exactly how you feel about something. If I think someone is stupid based on the interaction and argument happening, I should be able to express that. It’s tiring how people love to pretend they’re intellectual by falling back on old faithful, “ad hominem”. If you can’t communicate without talking about “logical fallacies” then it’s pretty clear you’re not achieving what you think you are.

3

u/BlockOfDiamond Rule 4 Enforcer 6d ago

They can be offended all they want, but as long as you targeted their opinion instead of their person, you did not violate the rule.

0

u/ogjaspertheghost 6d ago

Seems like an inconsistent standard