The "racist" label is a metric institutions use to dictate who they will throw their institutional weight out to materially marginalize.Originally Posted by xerxe
If an idea were factually solid and consistent, but it still fit the prescription of "racist," that fact alone could, and in the past has, been used to socially invalidate it. Also, it's not just grassroots censuring of ideas labeled racist either. Platforms of public discourse, which often retain monopoly in their niche because of networking effects, liberally use the "racist" charge to choke certain subjects from public discussion. Applying a label to an idea is NOT criticism, it is an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem that, in this case, is not grassroots, but bears an asymmetrical, institutional stigma.
Also, when someone starts throwing out innocuous-looking conservative ideas, the same types who slander with the "racist" label turn around and accuse these perfectly innocuous ideas of being """"dogwhistles,"""" assume they are always coded language with no benefit of the doubt extended, refusing to engage the implications of these proposals on their own terms or merit.
So whether or not you're "lawful" in handling some right-leaning ideas, it's damned if you do or don't.
You've totally boxed up the conversation so the only conclusions it can yield are done on YOUR terms.
And no, you don't get to use the "Well, if you're not a wayciss, why are you so afraid of being called one, HUUUUUUHHHH?!" counterargument. You can say the same thing about calling someone a pedophile or a rapist, but people can still get falsely accused of being them, and the implications of that charge are rightful grounds for anger by the accused.
Reply With Quote