Replies

Sometimes, and sometimes it is apt.

Just like the other terms are properly applied in certain situations.

The terms do exist for a reason, and that is because there do exist some people who are appropriately described by them. However, the terms have been misused for decades now in order to intimidate people into silence. What is one of the worst things you can be labeled in the media today? How about "racist"? Many otherwise tough, no-nonsense men have fallen all over themselves apologizing for even the most innocent comments once someone manages to find a way to accuse it of racial overtones. Most people these days know that being called "racist" in today's society is almost as bad as being called a witch back in the medieval times.

In this case, FreeRepublic members were accused of being "xenophobes" before the discussion even began (post 12). It was a pre-emptive strike, if you will, a warning that anyone who might object is a "xenophobe". The only possible purpose for that is to intimidate potential posters from objecting to Martinez's use of Spanish on the Senate floor.

If we are ever going to make any headway in this fight to save our country from decay, we must refuse to let discussion and debate be stifled by these kinds of techniques. We might as well start here.

I would submit that the intimidation goes the other way, too. Why is it that any time someone raises concerns, they are accused of race-baiting? That claim is often used to excuse those who DO cross the line of racism.

So, let's not stifle discussion of the fact that there are real racists out there. Let's see the intimidation end on that front, as well, please. Or does thenon-intimidation request only go one way?

Great post.

"If we are ever going to make any headway in this fight to save our country from decay, we must refuse to let discussion and debate be stifled by these kinds of techniques. We might as well start here."

Bears repeating.