Jennifer Wadsworth, gatekeeper for the San Jose Inside blog, has approved the use of the term “racist” for civil discourse, citing that it is merely a “character/behavior assessment”. The full article and thread can be found here.
No, that’s not a violation because it’s not a slur. Calling someone a racist is a character/behavior assessment. Calling someone an offensive term by virtue of their identity, some unchangeable part of who they are? Now that would rise to the level of a slur and a violation of our comments policy.
Jennifer provides two tests for a slur: “Calling someone an offensive term . . .
- by virtue of their identity,
- some unchangeable part of who they are”
Regarding the first test, if a person’s “identity” is as a “non-racist”, then doesn’t calling them “racist” constitute a slur? Simple logic.
But the second test is problematic, not because of the explicit statement of the test, but because of the cunning duplicity of the attribute being tested: “racism”.
In the argot of progressives, “racism” is a “dog whistle”.
Dog–whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.
“Racism” means one thing to the general population: “antipathy toward a person or a group of people because of their race.”
But “racism” has a crucially different meaning to “progressives” and their peers in the progressive subculture. Embedded in the progressive notion of “racism” is a qualifier of WHO can be a racist. Only people with “power” can be racist. Blacks and minorities, do NOT have power. Therefore, blacks and minorities cannot be “racist”. In American society, ONLY whites have power, and therefore, ONLY WHITE PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST.
Progressives often liken “racism” to a disease, and the disease analogy is illustrative.
For example, it is universally recognized that breast cancer is a horrible disease and eradicating breast cancer is a desirable end. But it is a fact that breast cancer is overwhelmingly a disease of women. No one feels it necessary to deplore breast cancer in women. It is sufficient to simply deplore breast cancer. It is understood, that it is a medical condition of women.
The same is true of sickle cell anemia. It is not necessary to deplore “black” sickle cell anemia. It is again understood, that it is a medical condition of blacks.
And, with exactly the same reasoning, progressives identify “racism” as a “disease” of white people. It is not necessary for progressives to explicitly deplore “white racism”. All racism IS “white racism”.
So Jennifer’s assertion that “racism” is a “character/behavior assessment” unconnected to “some unchangeable part of who [people] are” is sophistry.
For the general population, perhaps many people believe anyone can be a racist.
But for progressives, and more importantly, for the messages they promote to the general population, “racism” is a “character/behavior assessment” that IS connected to the “unchangeable part” of who white people are: their whiteness.
Here is a little test for Jennifer. Go to the New York Times, CNN, or your favorite “mainstream” news source, and identify ten people whom the source identities as “racist”. How many of those so identified are “white”? ALL?
For extra credit, find five NON-WHITE people in the mainstream media’s “news” reportage who are identified as “racist”? ANY? (Hint. “Bigot” doesn’t count. Progressives acknowledge that non-whites can be “bigots”, but not”racists”.)
“Racism” is a slur on white people. Sophistic. Sneaky, Deceitful. Explicit, Malignant. Cunning. Passive aggressive. Premeditated.
An ugly, vicious, premeditated anti-white slur.