In the days of Usenet, before there was an Internet, this sort of language was regarded as neutral and informative -- it's not abusive when it's accurate. But the Politically Correct movement in social media is seeing a revival, such that even accurate use of these terms is regarded as counterproductive.
In the Usenet era, some individuals would strive to earn the label, and applying it would save people a lot of time trying to engage in constructive conversations with people who were manifestly unable to rise to the occasion.
Bottom line -- it's possible to take PC to a pointless extreme. And I'm hardly the first to make this point.
Fair enough, but this begs the question of what constitutes incivility. If present trends continue, telling someone that they're wrong will be regarded as uncivil behavior. To avoid censure it will only be possible to assert that they've posted "alternative facts."
I happen to agree that incivility represents a real problem in social media, and we've seen many sites abandon their discussion groups because of uncivil posts and people. But I think the argument can be made that definitions have changed as well as behavior.
> That goes back to Usenet as well.
Not really. Having posted there for many years, I can tell you from direct experience that the perceived threshold of incivility has changed completely. One need only review posts from that era to see the point that definitions and standards have changed.
But this is now, and an argument about what was once acceptable doesn't seem particularly persuasive even to me, especially now that we have an embodiment of incivility running the country.
Please don't resort to name-calling, regardless of the language used by fellow commenters.