Letter to My Dead Tree Paper

There was an editorial in today's dead tree paper by Reuben Navarrette. You may have seen him on Fox where he is a sometime (empty headed) contributor. I'll link to his editorial when they post the column online. This was my response:

Reuben Navarrette: "Conservatives hate it when people toss around the word "racist" to end an argument when they seemingly don't have anything else to say" ...said no conservative ever! Aside from his infantile painting conservatives with a broad brush, my experience, and that of conservatives I know, is that we hate it when our liberal friends shout "racist" when they have nothing else to say. Reuben has more projection than a multiplex!

Then he tells us of his other "assumptions". You know what they say about the word "assume". What conservatives don't like, aside from the baseless slurs, is a devaluation of the language. If everything is "racist", then nothing is racist. Racist is a powerful word that denotes a terribly ignorant and sometimes violent mindset. Using it inappropriately or trivially or, in my experience, as most liberals do when they run out of arguments, cheapens the word and makes it less effective when referring to those who actually are.

I don't know if Mr. Navarrette is actually confused over the word or is merely trying the old liberal "accuse your opponents of the things you are actually doing". Worked pretty well up 'til now for Hillary's RussiaGate.

Conservatives are tired of having to defend themselves against baseless charges of racism. I have often said that there is a special place in Hell for people who falsely accuse others of being racist. It is character assassination and promotes racial strife.

I am not sure what poppy field may have inspired Navarrette to imagine that conservatives want a "monopoly" on any words at all. We'd just like for you to use them correctly.

As to Tucker Carlson, as far as I can tell, is doing what Rush Limbaugh used to say was 'illustrating absurdity by being absurd'. Often when Carlson says something is "racist", he's doing it tongue in cheek, using the same (erroneous) standard that liberals have used for years. In other words, (pay attention here Reuben, this has obviously gone over your head), he is pressing his liberals guest to admit that what he is calling racist, isn't, and therefore by extension, what they have been calling racist isn't either.

Seen in that light, conservatives like Carlson are not trying to get a monopoly on "racism", but to dismantle the monopoly that exists on the Left, by pointing out the absurdity of their ineffectual arguments.