To answer an accusation, you have to know what it means. If the words have no fixed meaning, no argument can show that it’s false. Certain words in the culture of the left serve this purpose. They allow irrefutable accusations — irrefutable because they mean whatever the accuser wants them to. Denying the accusation or defending someone else against it can even become evidence of guilt. Words are supposed to be the tools of thought, but these words are designed to make thought impossible.
“Racist” is the broadest catch-all word. I’ve been threatened with having rumors spread that I’m racist, because I opposed formal racial categorizations at science fiction conventions. On this blog, a certain Hugo winner hinted that my criticism of the Chengdu Worldcon was evidence of racism. You may notice a certain lack of logic in the charges, but logic has nothing to do with it. The purpose is to intimidate and enforce conformity within the group.
The “phobia” words — homophobia, islamophobia, transphobia, etc. — conflate unjustified hostility, legitimate criticism (primarily in the case of Islam), and involuntary psychological aversion. They offer a veneer of science. Recently I learned that “islamophobia” not only isn’t a phobia, it doesn’t have to have anything to do with Islam. A joke in which someone claimed to remove all the humans from a Nativity scene because they were “foreign” was supposed to demonstrate the existence of “islamophobia,” even though no one has ever seriously suggested such a thing and Islam didn’t exist in Jesus’s time. None of that matters. Using that stereotype is supposed to demonstrate how “islamophobic” an imaginary group of people is, as a way of attributing the phobia to actual people.
“Fascism” literally refers to the government of Italy under Benito Mussolini. In the extended sense, it’s an authoritarian system of government that seeks to unify all the people under a powerful leader, completely subordinating the individual to the leader and the group. In common usage on the left, it refers to any political practices or attitudes which someone doesn’t like. This one goes back quite a way; when I was a college student around 1970, the “New Left” crowd would regularly yell “Fascist!” at anyone who disagreed with them. I was yelled at that way when I was trying to pass through an obstructive protest line to get to class.
The point is to intimidate with an accusation, not to identify facts. The charge has no specific meaning, so standards of evidence can’t apply. Rejecting the charge makes you guilty. The only thing to do is stay clear of people who act that way and not help them pretend they’re saying anything meaningful. That may feel like giving them what they want, but there’s nothing to gain from talking with people who argue that way.
Are you trying to say that there’s no such thing as the “phobia” words?
What word or words would you suggest as a replacement?
Obviously the words exist, even if they’re misused. For legitimate criticism of hostility, “bigotry” or “irrational hatred” would serve better.
Some people may have actual phobic reactions, or at least extreme nervousness, when dealing with people in these categories. That’s not how the words are usually used, and help is more appropriate than denunciation when we’re actually dealing with such reactions.
If I may, here’s an example from personal experience, a few decades ago. I learned that a friend was transitioning to male, at a time when this was rare. This had me nervous and confused, even if “phobic” isn’t quite the right word. I talked with a close friend to both of us, and she helped me to understand. I just needed time to make sense of it.
Well said, sir! The point is, as you say, to intimidate. Stand firm!
Best,
G