>>I agree with you, which is why I offered bigot. I think it's important to separate prejudice against any group from advocacy of the group's agenda. We often fail to do that. Politically, groups tend to want attribute prejudice to what is merely non-support of their agenda. Racist is used inappropriately, IMO, a lot.<<
That is actually a very profound concept put to words and I want to thank you for it.
"Labeling" is almost universally a method by which a person demeans the character or motivation of an individual.
And "racist" is a prime example.
There probably isn't a person in this country who can legitimately claim to be "color blind" and doesn'tbehave in certain ways relative to the race of the person they may be dealing with....But does that make them a "racist"?
As in the "Aryan Nation" or "KKK" definition of a racist? Or your garden variety "I'm in a (name the ethnicity) part of town, I stand out, I better be careful" type of "racist".
It is a sad thing that more and more in this country, you can't debate policies or attitudes without running the risk of having your integrity besmirched by a claim (unsubstantiated )of "intolerance" , "phobia", "bias", "prejudice" or "anti" any political group seeking redress for either perceived or real grievances.
To accuse someone of being "homophobic" as a means of "raising awareness" is akin to asking someone "when did you stop beating your wife" in an effort to point out the problem of spousal abuse.
BTW, Karen, I think there's a job somewhere for you in the State Department. (Hopefully a high level position)
;) |
