[quote=@Vilageidiotx]It's only blaise if we consider these (racism not being taboo vs racism as an overused taboo) separate issues. I think it is a sliding scale, personally, where on one end (racism not being taboo) we have systematic violence, and on the other (racism as an overused taboo) we have stupid shit happening in public but being systematically contained. What I am afraid of is this fight currently taking place against the tabooification of racism is going to recreate systematic racism that right now is at least somewhat (though not completely) tamed. [/quote]

I don't like this word 'taboo.' I'm not arguing that racism should become more okay -- I'm arguing that we oughta be a lot more critical of the use of the word (and its various derivatives). Which ties into my one-man crusade against the prefix "anti-" in political discourse, and my lesser-crusade against the "pro-" prefix. The [i]only[/i] utility in these identity-based descriptives is divide-and-conquer exploitation of whatever issue.

Hopefully that clarification helps explain my stance, so that the following responses become more cogent:

[quote]A: Trump was elected. The race taboo didn't end his chances. [/quote]

I was actually thinking of Sessions, tbh, but let's run with Trump. Hilary's [i]entire campaign[/i] was -isms and -ogyny's and -igots and etc.'s. We don't have data to say exactly how many people bought into it, but the outright hysteria that has followed the election should be some indication. This language is dangerous and its irresponsible (and/or exploitative) use is reprehensible.

[quote]The basket of deplorables was, in my opinion, a tactical error.[/quote]

Heh. Heh heh heh heh. Heh. Well that's one way of putting it. To the latter point, let's dispense with the fiction that Barrack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. But seriously -- the only issues I can think of (and I've been thinking so long that my brain turned into Marco Rubio) in which the right has 'shit on' democrat voters are homophobia and abortion. Trump ain't your GOP gay-basher, for damn sure, and the abortion shittery has been (at worst) a level shitting field, so I don't think it's really comparable. But then again for every "guns and religion" jab there's a "welfare queen" return-fire, so it might just be fair to say politics is a black hole of awfulness from which no light can escape, and move on.

[quote]Also, why is it now "Social bullying" to shop with your dollar, so to speak? I do not see the North Carolina situation as bullying at all and I think it is hyperbolic to suggest it.[/quote]

[url=http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom]I lifted that from here,[/url] NC bathroom bill was just the most quantifiable cost-analysis. Not a perfect fit, because like you said, boycott is pretty civil. The 'bullying' charge is coming from, like, you can't say [i]anything[/i] that goes against the uberprogressive new-normal without severe backlash. Christian bakeries might've been a better example. There's a buzz-phrase in /r/T_D called "the tolerant left," so if you like I can pull up about a [i]million[/i] other examples which are probably all better -- but again, harder to quantify than the revenue loss from NCAA ball in NC.