I certainly hope Catholic Answers is happy. They wasted a lot of money on a pointless two hour radio program that didn't help their audience understand traditionalists, "radical" or otherwise. What they did do was create an incredible amount of ill will from traditionalists, and even those who aren't. When these kind of circumstances happen, certain traditionalists will go out of their way spoiling for a fight.
I'm not really one to comment too much on the article in The Remnant. When one gets past Mr. Ferrara's verbal flourishes, one finds there actually aren't a lot of things to disagree about. I think everyone would agree that nobody is obligated to attend Mass in the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form. Everyone would also agree (or at least they should) that the Church has been under attack from both the world and from within, and that weapon has many names: the dictatorship of relativism, modernism, secularism, etc. I think it is also beyond dispute that everyone agrees the Second Vatican Council wasn't implemented pretty good, if at all. Those who disagree are free to find beef with Pope Benedict (who spoke of a false council of the media that has mistaken for Vatican II) and Pope Francis.
These truths aren't denied by anyone, yet both sides have to act like they do. Why? To put it bluntly, people are pretty angry when they are treated as second class Catholics, and they are likely to fire back in kind. When people aren't around screaming "rad-trad", you don't see too much talking about "Neo-Catholic." Neither term is actually descriptive of anything. It simply means "other people do crap I don't like, and I need to condemn it in the flashiest way possible." They are polemical terms that belong to a previous age. They are also words that are only meant for the choir.
So now we've got another pointless conflict that the good folks at Catholic Answers don't actually disagree with, or at least wouldn't dare to disagree with it in public, as they really are settled matters. What's sad is that others are actually starting to become a bit more honest in their assessment of matters. The only problem with this kind of approach is you aren't going to drive up ratings for your radio show or print magazine. Instead you will do the far more mundane task of slowly but surely laying a proper foundation for true Catholic unity. Perhaps Catholic Answers would be far better suited instructing its audience how to do that.
Wow. I hadn't seen the piece by Patrick Coffin.
ReplyDeleteI'm both shocked and disappointed in it.
Instead of trying for a "Mulligan" on this episode, by trying to do it over on 15 August, perhaps Patrick Coffin should actually have on air someone else from the so-called "traditional" viewpoint and let Tim Staples have a day off.
What is sad is that they are clamoring for a huge fight on their next show. I really wish instead, everyone would call in and challenge them to interact with actual traditionalists instead, because it's clear these guys don't know any flesh and blood trads, and hence don't really know what they are talking about.
ReplyDeleteLike any term, people misuse "radtrad," but I've written about four lengthy articles now that show that it means quite a bit, and it has content and substance and reflects real folks and their mistaken ideas. I even went into the etymology of the term (it dates from the mid-90s, from Sandra Miesel, and Pete Vere and Mark Shea and Scott Windsor were using it very early also).
ReplyDeleteYou write: "When people aren't around screaming 'rad-trad', you don't see too much talking about 'Neo-Catholic'" . . .
"Radtrad" was used mostly in private e-mail circles (among the names I mentioned above). I wrote a book on "traditionalism" in 2002 and never used it (I used "quasi-schismatic"). I don't believe it appears in Madrid's and Vere's book on the SSPX, either. I myself didn't use "radtrad" till five years ago or so.
But Chris Ferrara (the epitome of a radtrad) noted that he coined "neo-Catholicism" himself in his book in 2002 (that even his co-author Thomas Woods now disses), and it has constantly been used in radtrad circles since then (just read back logs of the Fisheaters Forum if you doubt this). I critiqued "The Remnant" on my site at length in 2000.
You say "neo-Catholic" is only used in reaction to "radtrad"? Well, Ferrara used the term 34 times in his article that you cite. That's an awful lot for mere reactionary use: which would be silly, anyway. If it's wrong to use a term, it should never be used, with no exceptions made for polemical or "controversial" circumstances.
"Neo-Catholic" has no justification or proper pedigree. But "radtrad" has significant and substantive justification. "Traditionalists" call themselves that term. We didn't start that. Y'all use the term to describe yourselves. You do it yourself in your little "About Me" profile to the right.
I have never thought it was a necessary term to use. I agree with "Boniface" (I think he goes to Assumption Grotto also): who recently produced a quotation from Pope Benedict XV (not XVIth), saying that "Catholic" is alone necessary. Hence, he has stopped calling himself a "traditionalist." Welcome to the club! I've thought that for 15 years now. I usually put the term in quotes myself, to register my protest.
So anyway, you guys are already using that term, so it is not a polemical or derisive label put onto you (as "neo-Catholicism" certainly is). But there is a need to distinguish mainstream "traditionalists" from far more extreme or ultra ones. Hence, "radtrad": which is simply a short and catchy version of "radical traditionalist." They take things further. They go to the "roots" (the basic meaning of "radical") or nearly to the roots.
ReplyDeleteThe name makes perfect sense. It is used in contradistinction to [mainstream / sensible] "traditionalism" so as to indicate the stark differences between the two. As Pete Vere has noted, the original use of it in the mid-90s was to differentiate those like him who were loyal to the Church (the FSSP or "indult" types) from those who were often disloyal; who flirted with SSPX and often expressed outrageous anti-magisterial, anti-Vatican II and anti-Novus Ordo rhetoric.
Why, then, should mainstream "traditionalists" get offended when we (including now, Coffin and Staples) are trying very hard to distinguish kooks and extremists FROM them? Why is an act of charity and ecumenical outreach (so to speak) rejected out of hand? Personally, I think it is largely emotionalism. I know that is all it's been when I got into one of my many controversies with folks who didn't like / vastly misunderstood my use of the term "radtrad." I'm just giving MY own experience (not that it is exhaustive or representative of the whole thing, of course)
Either "traditionalists" read what I say about "radtrads" and the definition of same and accept it without further fuss or they continue on fighting and complaining about it, but on merely subjective and emotional grounds.
Lastly, I agree with having more than one viewpoint on the next CA radio show. They should have a mainstream trad and a radtrad, so people can clearly see the difference. My website is famous for having dialogues and folks representing themselves, rather than being characterized by opponents (who will never do as good of a job). I'm all for that.
ReplyDeleteYou or any of your readers are welcome to come discuss this on MY Facebook page. I'm happy to have constructive discussion about it. It rarely happens. It's time to start. We can all show that it is entirely possible to do.
""Neo-Catholic" has no justification or proper pedigree. But "radtrad" has significant and substantive justification."
ReplyDelete----------
LMAO. The rhetorical equivalent of my sh-t don't stink."
And now we have "mad trads" too. I'm sure someone will claim "significant and substantive justification" for that one as well.
Right. If you want to actually interact with my reasoning, let me know. Same old irrational and merely emotional response . . .
ReplyDeleteI am on record saying that "madtrad" is far more insulting, since it describes either anger or mental instability, whereas "radical" is merely a matter of degree or extremity.
You continue to make me laugh. Emotionalism is feeling the need to categorize everyone into neat little groups that "aren't you" instead of simply discussing and critiquing ideas. It's the desire to have an "us" versus "them" paradigm. You see it with the identity politics that is all the rage now.
ReplyDeleteBut I really do enjoy the "my categorizations are legitimate but their's are not."
Too funny.
Now I'm out of town so both of you behave. No snark no snide remarks. Ill deal with ya both when I'm back tomorrow
DeleteI'm "weapons hold" and RTB. :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNow that I'm back, my basic thoughts.
ReplyDeleteWhy people try to explain away "radtrad" as anything other than a polemical insult is beyond me. Pete has at least always been honest about why he used the term. It wasn't to distinguish between "good" and "rad" trads. It was a putdown and insult against those who took positions which were opposed to a real reading of the traditions of our fathers. The people who helped coin the term were Pete Vere and Mark Shea. Quick show of hands, anyone ever know Pete Vere and Mark Shea to be paragons of charity in dialogue with those they disagree with? Pete is a very good friend, one could call him my mentor, and I don't think he'll find this an insult, but he knows how to fire off verbal barbs with the best of them.
You can make all the distinctions you want, the term is meant to denigrate, and is mainly meant at the choir. It isn't a bridge building exercise with traditionalists, its a pep rally term for everyone else. You may think it helps distinguish with authentic traditionalists. Yet as you yourself admit Dave, you get a lot of heat from mainstream trads for using it. Why? We really don't like the term, and for reasons I actually hope to make clear this week, the term actually does a lot of damage to mainstream traditionalists, and does just as much damage to the unity of the Church.
I wouldn't say it in the rather polemical way Jeffrey said it (seriously, take a chill next time lol), but you really are engaging in special pleading David. The Great Facade devoted 30 pages to defining what a Neo-Catholic is, and what a Neo-Catholic isn't. That they have a rather precise definition in that book doesn't make the term any more or less acceptable.
I hope to explore the matter over the next week. For reasons I hope to make clear then, no Dave, I do not think the qualification made was a proper one. It is an understandable one, but a bad one nonetheless.
So if both you guys can play along, be nice. :)
And as far as the facebook discussion, I suppose i should first actually friend you. Don't take it personally I haven't even though we've been cool for several months. There are still members of my now extended family on Amy's side I've known for almost 3 years I haven't friended. I'm lazy on facebook. ;)
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't to distinguish between "good" and "rad" trads. It was a putdown and insult against those who took positions which were opposed to a real reading of the traditions of our fathers.
ReplyDeletePartially, I grant you. It definitely has a polemical / turn-the-tables edge top it. But it also has a serious meaning. I already researched all this months ago. Pete Vere wrote:
PETE: I recall using the term "radical traditionalist" to distinguish from "papal traditionalist" back on Trad-X and FIAT. This would have been during the mid-90's and was before I met Sandra [Miesel: whom he admits coined "radtrad"].
PETE: What I can say is that I used the term "radical traditionalist" as far back as 1996 to counter the word "Indulterer" among radtrads, as well as to distinguish us "papal traditionalists" (another term I coined at the same time) from those advocating schism.
I guess we should use the much more objective and respectful term, "Urine and Vinegar Wing of Traditionalism" huh Kevin? That's fine, but if someone dares use "radtrad" it's Chicken Little . . .
Imagine if *I* had come up with "Urine and Vinegar Wing of Traditionalism"?
You may think it helps distinguish with authentic traditionalists.
ReplyDeleteI don't just "think" it. It DOES do that. It's an act of charity and quite necessary distinction to make. In my 2002 book I simply used "traditionalist" (in quotes) and sometimes "quasi-schismatics". That's not sufficient today, because I recognize (quite consistent with many statements of yours) that "traditionalism" has become more respectable and less angry and "bitchy" and so I want to distinguish between "mainstream trads" and radtrads.
That's charitable; that's building bridges with sensible trads, while dissing the kooks. Liberals don't like to be called that (but they are); anti-Catholics hate that term, but it is perfectly legitimate (even scholarly, as I have documented a dozen times) and exactly descriptive.
Yet as you yourself admit Dave, you get a lot of heat from mainstream trads for using it. Why?
Already explained why: they don't understand (when they get mad) that I am not including them in with the term (precisely the opposite), and so this angers them, because they wrongly think I am calling them that. That was what the huge stink and slander-fest at a certain blog last March was all about: completely ridiculous.
I've had many mainstream trads -- once they understand the distinction -- agree with me and thank me for my efforts at reaching out to them.
I'll keep being as ecumenical and charitable as I can no matter how many people get angry or laugh about it. It's nothing new. It's all part of apologetics (unfortunately) to be massively misunderstood and opposed for illegitimate, wrongheaded reasons.
All I can do is keep explaining how I am using terms . . .
And I granted the "serious" reading. Yet I also said that doesn't excuse it. As Pete himself admits, it was to counter those who use "Indulter." It was an insult to match an insult. It's also an incredibly anachronistic one nowadays. There is no Indult.
ReplyDeleteYour justification for using the term is "it's awesome, and if only these mouth-breathing neanderthals would realize that I actually have their best interests in mind, they would love it." We are perfectly aware you don't mean us Dave. We also realize the term still does more harm than good. You act as if we have this false consciousness you need to peel away, then once it is peeled away, we can finally get it. We've gotten it all along.
That's why it's different than the time I made a one off statement that everyone, but especially traditionalists need to stop outrageous outrage and being full of nothing but the worst of our nature when it came to the election of a new pope. Even many of those who it was aimed at got a chuckle out of the remark, complimented it for its vivid nature. How do I know? We all had a chuckle about it at the Grotto the Sunday after I used the phrase.
So tell yourself you are being charitable all you want. It really isn't about charity. It's about whether or not what we think is a good idea actually works in objective reality. I'm here to say it doesn't, just as I've said for years.
Winner, winner…chicken dinner.
ReplyDeleteThe desire by anyone to define “them” is wasted energy. Instead of actually discussing ideas, more effort is expended on disagreeing on who is “us” and who is “them.” And while I think it is destructive, I laugh because it is farcical.
The entire military is embroiled in making such identity distinctions. It’s all part of the PC BS that has infected the ranks. And similarly, while I find that fetish to be destructive, I did often find humor in it and this discussion reminds me of such times. Every month now has some manner of “awareness” associated with it. A few of my mates and I would really enjoy going to the various potluck lunches that they would have for either “Black History Month” or “Asian/Pacific Islander Month” or whatever to see our Admiral speak to those gathered. He of course meant well. But his repeated stories about how he had a “black roommate in college” or “really enjoyed your people’s food” were just silly and a throwback to old thinking. Those who persist in using “rad trad” even with all of their explanations come across the same way.
Counter that with what I witnessed from a Navy Chaplain whom I hold very dear. Now as a priest, he didn’t pray the Old Mass (didn’t even know how to). He was and is the typical diocesan priest who wanted to be a Navy Chaplain. Well one day, I brought two priests on board the carrier for a tour of the ship. And while I do not attend SSPX chapels, circumstances had it that I was providing the tour for these two priests who were affiliated with the SSPX. My chaplain knew who they were (because I told him) and he made great effort to come out to them, shake hands and make them feel welcome. He also knelt down and asked them both for their blessing. Why? He told me afterwards that he felt many of the SSPX are persecuted because they simply love the Church and it reminded him of such persecution in the seminary that he and others received for simply having a devotion to Our Lady. It’s not that the SSPX are correct but it’s about who they are and what motivates them. I can assure you that his gesture moved the two guest priests.
My chaplain’s approach made inroads. Pope Benedict XVI made inroads. The desire to label and categorize? Completely ineffective. Let’s discuss ideas, not people. That is, if we are interested in results.
So if people want to throw around the term “rad trad” or “neo-Catholic” then I will simply laugh and move on. There is a much better way and I have seen in action.
Why don't you guys follow suit and stop calling yourself "traditionalists" if you hate labels so much? Your friend "Boniface" did just that recently. Bravo! You're the ones moaning about it, and acting like it is the most terrible thing in the world to identify a serious error and put a label on it.
ReplyDeleteYet you insist on differentiating yourself from the rest of us plain old "Catholics" (a perfectly good, historical term), which plainly implies (at least subtly, if not overtly) that those of us who don't use your label somehow oppose tradition or are less kosher and committed in that regard than those who label themselves with the word, as if they own it.
Objection to labels work both ways. You think "radtrad" somehow hits you like unintentional flak when it isn't directed towards you? Well, I can just as easily say that "traditionalist" implies some deficiency in those of us who don't feel a necessity of adding to the perfectly adequate and descriptive, historical term of "Catholic."
Again, I point out (no reply as of yet) that it was Kevin (not I, or Mark Shea or Pete Vere or Coffin or Staples) that came up with "the urine and vinegar wing of traditionalism." Why? To what purpose (given your present complaints)? Or are you already renouncing that and thinking better of it? It's far more insulting and derogatory than the simple "radtrad."
I don't refer to myself as a "traditionalist." I don't fault you from not remembering, but I have share this with you before.
DeleteAgain, the pitfalls of grouping people.
And to be clear, I don't call myself a "traditional Catholic" either.
DeleteI have always been just a Catholic.
And someone Jeffrey and myself don't really argue about this stuff. hows that possible?
DeleteDave, get off your horse. You pointed out a few hours ago something you thought was insinghtful, and I hadn't yet responded. That's it.
ReplyDeleteBut if you really need the response, here goes (since I can respond from a keyboard on blogger, but not facebook.)
When it comes to my statement that I made a few times around the election of Pope Francis, I did ineed state that the "urine and vinegar" traditionalism really needed to calm down. It was specifically directed towards those who were looking for nothing but negativity and despair in their writings and sayings, and how their bad character and manners were impacting everyone negatively.
People at the time seemed to understand it, and even those who the charge was labeled towards had a chuckle about it with me that very Sunday after I wrote those remarks. They even admired its creativity. They weren't offended by it, they took it as a serious charge. Nonetheless I really didn't offer it much afterwards, and beyond Mark Shea's one blogpost and a mention of it briefly here at CSC, that was it. That makes it completely different than the usage of radtrad which IS offending people, including those Dave claims he wants to help.
Yet in the interest of being fair, I'm ready to admit it wasn't one of my brightest moments, and I will sacrifice a lot giving up a term I only used twice and haven't used since then. Nobody took offense by it, but some are trying to use it to justify their rather shameful treatment, and we aren't going to allow that.
So Dave, that ball is back in your court. I've got no problem admitting we are all human and make mistakes. Yet let's call them what they are: mistakes. So now I await for you to renounce the phrase radtrad because it isn't conducive to creating a culture of unity within the Church.
And as far as labeling myself a traditionalist, you can feel free to stop the concern trolling. There are Thomists, Molinists, Charismatics, Jesuits, Fransiscans and Dominicans, and about a thousand other groups with a distinct indentity within the Church. You aren't concern trolling them, stop concern trolling us. Dominicans preach. Does that mean that anyone else who thinks their charism is preaching can concern troll them for calling themselves "the order of preachers?"
Traditionalists have some distinct charismsn that tend to package together, and they bring a certain worldview, especially in liturgical matters, which has helped reform the Church. Other people have that. Our current Pope Francis specifically talked about "traditionalist sympathies" when keeping his papal master of ceremonies, and has specifically reached out to charismatics, mentioning "charismatic" by name. Does he think that only charismatics have the holy spirit?
Radtrad again is something completely different. It's a term with the express intention of insulting and dividing, rather than an expression of diversity.
This argument was dumb when Shawn McElhinney came up with it 10 years ago, and it hasn't matured with age. Though it does prove my point about the second class status some people wish those who love the latin mass to live in. They offer no similar critque of those other groups. At least now we see it isn't the problem with the "radtrads", but rather traditionalists in general for being divisive inherently. Or can we just dismiss this as you being bored and concern trolling?
[just posted on my site]
ReplyDeleteHere is what Pope Benedict XV wrote in 1914:
It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
(Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24)
I wrote about this recently, following up on a post from a "traditionalist" friend of mine, who stopped calling himself that because of this quotation:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2013/07/on-use-of-qualifying-terms-like.html
I'd be more than happy to seriously consider ceasing to use "radtrad" IF Kevin and his buddies will stop calling themselves "traditionalists" per Pope Benedict XV (a thing I have argued should be the case from the beginning of my critiques of the movement in 1997), and IF they tell me what I am supposed to call those self-righteous, pharisaical, more-Catholic-than-the-pope Catholics who incessantly bash the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, popes since Pius XII, and ecumenism.
I'd be more than happy to work together to find a mutually agreeable solution. But will that happen? I sure wish it would, but don't hold your breath waiting for it.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
ReplyDeleteI've never called myself a "Traditional Catholic" precisely for the reasons Pope Benedict lays out. That assumes that yes, one can be a Catholic without adhering to the Traditions of our fathers, which we all agree is just nonsense.
Yet I have always held that one can be a Catholic, and have a distinct charism and way of expressing that Catholic identity that is different from others, and can be mutually enriching. Hence why if people want to say they belong to the Charismatic renewal and are charismatics, that's fine by me. I know they aren't saying (or they shouldn't be!) that only they have a hotline with the Holy Spirit.
So what to call "radtrads?" First, unless one is actually excommunicated and formally a schismatic, then they are Catholics, no matter how misguided and mistaken. Up until recently, one could call the SSPX something differently, except now the excommunications are lifted, and there is real progress on the road to a restoration of communion. (especially with the booting of Williamson)
One can point out how they are mistaken and wrong without the need to invent derogatory names. Saying Vatican II formally teaches error (not just ambiguity which is a copout but another discussion), and formally seperating yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff have nothing to do with Catholicism or any of the charisms through which we express our Catholic identity. So as to what to call it, call it nothing more or nothing less: wrong.
If you want to go above and beyond the call, you point out how this is not just bad theology, its bad traditionalism, and reference the countless amount of sensible trads who faithfully apply their charism. That isn't required though. Others can take care of that.
That's not nearly good enough to resolve our little problem and disagreement. Any category that has numerous distinctives has to have a title or name, because it's impossible to write without references to such categories by a title.
ReplyDeleteI defined radtrad above. It took 23 words to do so (I could hone it a bit, but it would still be wordy):
"self-righteous, pharisaical, more-Catholic-than-the-pope Catholics who incessantly bash the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, popes since Pius XII, and ecumenism."
Now, if I am critiquing this viewpoint (and it is that and has definite sociological parameters and manifestations, so that it is properly regarded as a class or group), it has to have a name, because a writer can't write the whole definition out every time it is referenced. No one does that. To do so would be absurd and boorish and tedious in the extreme for readers.
We still need a name. You haven't provided it. You simply deny that it is necessary, but I'm saying that that approach doesn't work; it's impossible to apply. It's a very practical problem of needing a name or identifier. It need not be intrinsically "insulting" at all. But, as I have argued, heretic and schismatic or apostate, etc., are not all that only viewed, either. Yet the Church has massively used them. I would venture to guess that you have called Protestants "heretics" in your writings. It's not common usage now. Yet they remain that where they are in error. They are Christians who are partially heretics. Radtrads are Catholics who are partially out of line with how Catholics ought to think about issues and be in obedience to Holy Mother Church.
The closest you've come is "bad traditionalism." You really think that'll work: that it'll cause no offense? Try it. I'd bet good money . . .
I've never ever denied that they were Catholics. That ain't the issue. Radtrads are Catholics who have a serious deficiency and who don't think with the Mind of the Church (or as Pete Vere would say, they don't have a "Roman mindset"). They think too much like liberal dissidents or Protestants. Pick and choose what they like and don't like . . .
TYPO
ReplyDelete"heretic and schismatic or apostate, etc., are not all that only viewed, either."
should be:
"heretic and schismatic or apostate, etc., are not all that FONDLY viewed, either."
We really don't need a name. How is it that I was able to carry out a lengthy debate with those sympathetic to those positions, and never once did I have to give them a name? We just debated over the texts of the council, the teachings of the popes, why outlooks should be of certain characteristics, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt's worked pretty darn good for the past 11 years I've been doing it. It worked in my dialogue with Jacob Michael, it worked in my dialogue with some individuals at Mark Shea's blog, it works in email, and it even works during my sunday convos at the Grotto or back when I was at St. Josaphat.
So let's not say it is required. It is required for YOU. YOU feel the need to label everything for your own conscience sake.
As far as my writings, no I don't ever recall calling Protestants "heretics." Why? Because it's bad form to call someone a heretic, something that has a very precise meaning, when you can't be certain they qualify for that meaning. Being a Protestant in and of itself doesn't make one a heretic. It makes them seriously mistaken, opposed by the Scriptures and tradition, but someone who does so through ignorance isn't a heretic. Now James White? Sure, he's a heretic because he is quite knowledgeable of things and quite obstinate.
As for me in my discussions, I only use labels they are comfortable with, if I use them at all, because "Protestant" doesn't tell us much, other than they are protesting something.
So the errors of those you call "radtrads" are just wrong, and just classify them as wrong. that you feel the need to continue a classification to make things easy on yourself.... just proves that the apologetics approach to things isn't always the best approach. The SSPX are currently wayward brothers who take positions that are not worthy of their calling, not enemies threatening the very existence of Christendom.
A dialogue towards restoring full communion, where brothers attempt to reconcile their differences in a familial setting is not the place for monikers which offend. It also has the added bonus of not causing any blowback on those who don't deserve those demeaning terms.