One way that seems to be effective I learned from Neal Boortz. He will ask the accuser to explain to him what the word means. He politely request the accuser to, "define racism."
The accuser will typically describe anything but what is racism. In fact, it is interesting how many people do not know the real meaning of the word racism due to the word being thrown around so freely.
I have learned that once the accuser is informed of the true definition, I should then ask them to explain how the word applies to the issue being discussed.
For example, ask the accuser, how does Joe Wilson saying "you lie" to President Obama equal the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others?
The response is like a master card commercial...priceless.
I argue from the angle of one race promoting itself over other races.
The black congressional congress is such an organization. The NAACP advocates advancement of blacks over other races. Ergo, both are racist organizations.
For a point to be racist, it must be racial in nature. A person believing in our Constitution does not make them a racist.
The logic card doesn’t work on liberals.
Careful there... they’ll change the definition on you..
I never argue the point as that is what they want.
I stick to the point and tell them that they do not know me so what ever they think then alright but the fact remains(then go back on topic
I’ve been having this conversation over at harmony-central. I just tell them that all people are racist to one degree or another, so they need to further qualify the word for it to have meaning. And once they do, you get to ask them what evidence resulted in that qualification.
But to be fair, it is entering Godwins law territory. Calling someone a racist now is almost like comparing them to hitler. It’s just dumb without ironclad evidence.
I think we should all practice a bored, dismissive “whatever” shrug. As if the accusation is expected and will be ignored.
“For example, ask the accuser, how does Joe Wilson saying “you lie” to President Obama equal the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others?”
That might work on a novice, but a professional race baiter would probably argue that Wilson would have more respect for a White President than a black one, and wouldn’t have done it if BO were white. No one did it to Bill KKKlinton and that SOB lied everytime he opened his yap.
"You're a racist."
"I don't object to the color of his skin, but the color of his politics. Red."
Cheers!
As you feel about the word, ‘racism,’ I have felt about the word, ‘homophobia.’ Are we to believe that people who shun homosexuality are ‘afraid’ of it? How in the world does such nonsense slip into the language? And while I’m on stupid language pet peeves, what about ‘horrific,’ ‘ironic,’ and ‘literally?’ Are any of those words ever being used correctly? :)
The racist is annoyed because he secretly suspects that the races are equal. The anti-racist is annoyed because he secretly suspects that they are notMore hereAn individual declares himself a member of some group or other with the goal of demanding in its name what he is ashamed to claim in his own name.
a person could try saying that he believes in individualism, and free will,and judges people by their own personal character and actions, and that a government that is limited and just and a society that is free helps to block racism. And also say that the opposite liberal worldview of collectivism, determinism, and statism encourages racism.
I might have to give that a try. Thanks for posting it.