Scott Adams suggests calling it "outragism". http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109482303301/outragists-are-the...

"I coined the word outragism so victims of it will have a powerful word of self-defense", what a fantastic idea! Word equipment/equipping, good stuff.

Fantastic, except what you get is an arms race, and then someone pulls out a conceptual superweapon[0][1], and the whole topic becomes an irradiated, barren wasteland that won't be able to provide any value for a couple of few years.

[0] - http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html

[1] - http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html

It's important to be careful that such mechanisms don't become a thought-terminating cliche, however.

Great idea. And if anyone is confused, this thread is already the #1 result when you Google "Wm;djr".

This is great. I think I'll start signing my responses this way in response to "willful misinterpretations".

or bf;wr (bad faith; won't respond). i prefer the term "bad faith" since it covers more cases than "wilful misinterpretation"; i've been using it to good effect on facebook to disengage with malicious arguments, though i didn't think of acronyming it.

I like the ;wr part (won't respond) better than the ;djr (looks complex).

But we should make sure to decide on a single one* to use, I like a bit of both: wm;wr cause of symmetry.

*maybe it would be more effective to have multiple and see if any of them catch on but I feel like it'll just cause unnessecary confusion

I vote that some of these get adopted, definitely solid concepts worth formalizing.