I don’t want to jump in with too much negativity, seeing how this discussion turned unexpectedly positive — something which is all too rare in the superheated political atmosphere we have these days — but unfortunately I will have to call bullshit on you.

Specifically, I detect a motte-and-bailey thing going on here with the word “racist”. I don’t want to blame you in particular for inventing this tactic, as it is ubiquitous — it’s impossible to talk about racism with any precision unless you preface your statements with a paragraph or two of explanation of exactly what the definition you are using for each word (which has the natural effect of dampening any productive discussion on race, and makes it very easy to hurl accusations of “racism” at people). The defect is built right into our political language. But by taking advantage of this defect, you are playing with language in a way that is essentially dishonest.

[One thing that has always struck me as deeply suspicious is the lack of distinct words (in common usage) which can differentiate between David Duke and Charles Murray. Both are simply “racist”, despite the fact that their outlooks, opinions, and motivations have almost nothing in common. This trick is straight out of Orwell.]

Virtually nobody denies that different communities face different challenges. But it is very common for an argument to proceed from this ground and bound outward in illogical leaps by means of redefining “racism”. You accused Needforname of spouting “racist BS” — this is a very strong term, and your redefinition of it into something that applies to everyone (nobody fully grasps the challenges faced by others) is pure bullshit.

[The use of this term in your original comment makes all of this plain.]

)

    Progressive Reformation

    Written by

    A Right-Opposition for the New Left.