Why All the Name Calling?

So a question was asked: something about what would a person change in the first 100 days, if they became President of some country. It was a good question. The answer, in quotes below, was one of the responses.

"amnesty for every illegal alien that hasn't committed a crime or broken the law in any way or engaged in any illegal activity....yea xenophobes,zealots and bigots I know you consider by the mere fact of being here illegally they have commited a crime but it's my presidency and I give the amnesty according to my criteria and not yours."

The first part of the answer, although I don't agree, was sort-of thoughtful, and had the sentiments of the person who answered in mind. It was fine, because it is the way that person believes.

In addition to the name calling the person actually says 'I say what goes'. We have that President right now. Do we want another President who does not do the will of the people, or is it time to take back a country from dictators who refuse to understand they are a single person? I know that in America, that last statement can be totally negated because of the Constitution and the requirements of the President, as well as his or her limitations.

Now the second part was not necessary at all. Why did this person go from amnesty for "illegal immigrants" to calling those who would disagree "xenophobes, zealots, and bigots"? What did that truly accomplish?

I contend that the answer accomplished the very opposite, or maybe not, intent of the post. How many times can someone who disagrees be called names before they stop listening? Had this answer gone on to explain why they believe that amnesty for all otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants is a good idea, he or she may have gotten some people to change their stance, and consider the idea. Instead, what happens is that the entire thought is negated because the answer had to go too far and tell readers that because you may disagree with their ill-defined, poorly defended stance you are nothing more than scum in a bathtub, or mud under his feet.

This poorly chosen conclusion to a response to a pretty good question will not make people want to listen, it will make people want to ignore, block, and otherwise negate anything of value that the person may have had to say.

If you want someone to hear you, whisper, don't shout. If you want someone to hear you out, don't call them names they likely do not deserve. People want to be taken seriously. When you are shouted at, when you are called names, I'm relatively certain that you are not going to listen, you are going to turn your back and walk away.

I'd walk away. Today, however, I chose to point out that this kind of vitriolic rhetoric, hateful name-calling, and terrible choices of justification are not going to be heard.

Truly. If you want your stance to be understood, explain, don't hit below the belt, and stop calling people names just because their ideas are different than yours.

Thank you, and have a nice day.