Some would say that I have a knack for expressing myself with colorful language. Unlike a lot of geeks, I get a sometimes flair for rhetoric from my mom's liberal arts-dominated side of the family. I know exactly how I am most of the time when doing it, so I am eschewing any pretense of innocence here.

You know what? Sometimes you need to use such rhetoric when dealing with stupid people, highly illogical people and highly emotional people. It just has the wonderful habit of reacquainting them with their inner idiot or providing them the sort of catharsis that normally comes from rough, angry sex or hard drugs. Most of all, it can provide a clear extreme point for a discussion about an idea, and extreme points are needed. Here's an example.

"When you agree with Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, you need to question which side of the fence you're sitting on."

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm sure most people could find a lot in common with Cindy and Michael on the question of whether or not it is moral to murder children and flambe their pets using the child's blood as a marinade. Did I just make you gag and think "what the hell is wrong with this guy?" If not, good, let's continue.

You see, in this situation, it's easy for your average Republican to say "you're just a damn liberal because the liberals I hate agree with you." Now, the value in the extreme wording and example giving is that it if done correctly, you are playing the same verbal sport in the same field, but being extremely vicious in how you play ball. It exposes an ugly truth, which is that on some level we all agree with other sane people on something, thus we are all damn liberals and damn reactionary religious right fundie whackos who hate children, puppies and gay martians (the Democrats are already dispatching voter registration cards for the next lander craft to carry).

I agree with Karl Marx that workers should not be exploited. Taking the (il)logic of such ideologues at face value, many a reactionary Republican would call me a damn commie by association. Problem is... I'm not a communist because agreement on a single issue is generally not enough to provide a coherent framework to judge someone's beliefs by. One can say "I think Mohammed was the 'Seal on the Prophets'" but they are hardly a Muslim if they believe such things that Mohammed flew to heaven on a purple unicorn that shot rainbows out of its butt to make the skies over Mecca pretty everyday. Logically, it is even simpler to say that merely agreeing on a single instance of minutia hardly provides a context for a relabeling or hell, often a labeling at all.

Now none of this is intended to imply that it is wrong to question a person's intelligence or moral character because of something they say that puts them on common ground with idiots and scoundrels. That is simply a matter of discernment that the person is possibly daft and dastardly. However, it makes no sense to come up with complex labels based on a tangential point of commonality. I mean really, the reason I (intend to) call this the "dead child and roasted animal" logical fallacy of politics is that beliefs are beliefs. As absurd as it is to ask someone what they think about blood-battered beagles and other cruel culinary machinations, the reality is that it is different in degree, not nature, to asking someone what they think about tax policy or any other political issue.

So there.