I'm not segregating anyone, pigeonholing for effect maybe, but that's all.
Whilst I have no objection to you splitting people up into groups based on their opinions, as this is something that happens within academic historiography all the time, I do object to the names you give these groups. You give the groups the names you do for effect of rhetoric, whereas if your arguments were strong enough, you would not need to.
As for whether people use these terms all the time; a term having slipped into a language game doesn't give it any more validity or credence in terms of its argumentative value, it just means that it is a term in use.
What you do not realise is that when you do this "for effect," you may also be having the effect of a) offending those who disagree with you, turning away those who may potentially agree with you, c) annoying those who already agree with you because they get lumped in as "name callers" as well. In fact, the only people it does convince are the people who were convinced by you anyway. And if you're presenting an argument solely for their benefit, you're not producing a very good argument.