Not all cancers are alike. And some growths are tumors but not cancers. So yes, I want specificity, otherwise all I have is panic and doom. Do you want to solve a problem, or do you want to have the satisfaction of giving all targets of your righteous ire the explosive epithet you think they so richly deserve? You can have one but not the other. Being opposed to affirmative action is not the same as saying a judge is biased because he has Mexican heritage. The racist murder of Amaud Arbery is not the same as voting for Trump. When everything not sufficiently racially sensitive falls under one umbrella, nothing means anything. And you lose the persuadables.
I'm not saying do nothing and hope the problem goes away. I'm saying find ways to specify the exact problem rather than using a term that just gets peoples backs up. It's a conversation stopper, not starter. The term totally 'others' the person it is directed to. It's seen as irredeemable. Solving problems by building alliances requires specificity, not generalized (and therefore meaningless) labeling. So yes, the murder of Amaud Arbery was absolutely racist. As is redlining, and some parts of anti-immigration rhetoric. But using that word for what is systemic bias that may not have specific current racist intent, dilutes the term and does NOT make people see the light. So, for example, is test-based admission to gifted student programs racist? How about a tax on groceries? Increased funding for the police? Outlawing menthol cigarettes (this is currently controversial within the CBC) ?
Not all cancers are alike. And some growths are tumors but not cancers. So yes, I want specificity, otherwise all I have is panic and doom. Do you want to solve a problem, or do you want to have the satisfaction of giving all targets of your righteous ire the explosive epithet you think they so richly deserve? You can have one but not the other. Being opposed to affirmative action is not the same as saying a judge is biased because he has Mexican heritage. The racist murder of Amaud Arbery is not the same as voting for Trump. When everything not sufficiently racially sensitive falls under one umbrella, nothing means anything. And you lose the persuadables.
I'm not saying do nothing and hope the problem goes away. I'm saying find ways to specify the exact problem rather than using a term that just gets peoples backs up. It's a conversation stopper, not starter. The term totally 'others' the person it is directed to. It's seen as irredeemable. Solving problems by building alliances requires specificity, not generalized (and therefore meaningless) labeling. So yes, the murder of Amaud Arbery was absolutely racist. As is redlining, and some parts of anti-immigration rhetoric. But using that word for what is systemic bias that may not have specific current racist intent, dilutes the term and does NOT make people see the light. So, for example, is test-based admission to gifted student programs racist? How about a tax on groceries? Increased funding for the police? Outlawing menthol cigarettes (this is currently controversial within the CBC) ?