And even common words can get very negative associations over time. Sometimes language has to change because of that. It's a pity, especially if you like the specific term, but that's life.
Of course there are idiots on Twitter that debate the semantics of the name - but those are largely teenagers and young adults.
Because on both sides of the barricade, there are partisans that interpret everything as dog whistling. Whether it is "Black Lives Matter" or "It's OK to be white", same thing.
On social media, no one would bat an eye at the quote "white people are trash". The quote "black people are trash" is (correctly) an instant ban. If Sarah Jeong wrote that she "loved being cruel to old brown people", she would not be working for the NYT. Take any socially accepted joke about white people, and replace white with any other race to make it no longer socially acceptable.
There is a different standard applied to white people than other races. That's an objective fact.
You can argue that this is justified due to differences in societal power, which is not an unreasonable argument at all, but to deny that it exists is willful ignorance.
The reason that "it is okay to be white" is so effective is that it does have poignancy to young, impressionable white people who inhabit an online world filled with vitriol directed at them, so when you then call it a "racist" statement, it only serves to alienate them and drive recruitment to the alt-right. The correct response to "it is okay to be white" is not "that's a racist statement that you can't say" but "yes, obviously, moron".
White nationalism is really just the dumbest shit ever, but this complete and utter refusal to understand the root causes of the movement only helps them. It is, quite literally, what the terrorists want.
But whatever, enjoy your day.
Do you see how absurd this kind of reasoning is?
Do you mean this quote?
He meant the silent white supremacists, who protested quietly (with long guns, and who afterwards were pretty proud of themselves that they haven't mowed people down despite having been hit by bricks).
There's a 207 page long review assembled by a commission about the events, and it found no peaceful pro-statue protesters.
Thought Experiment #2: If you were a manager and your team was as a chaotic, unqualified, and had the turnover that the WH has, what do you think would happen?
If they were good people they would've called the nazis out and kicked them out of their march, or refused to march with them. Instead they marched with the nazis.
[1]https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/04/30/the-fine-people-ho...
This is a pathetic attempt to absolve trump of his clear racism and dog whistles to extremists. If he assumes wrongly it's okay to say whatever he wants? That points even more directly to a dog whistle. Shame on whoever wrote that as a defense.
Joining up with a bunch of white nationalists to march in support of a statue of a man who is famous for waging a traitorous war against the United States in support of the institution of slavery doesn't make one a "very fine person", indeed quite the opposite.
While you may not believe trump is a racist sending dog whistle after dog whistle to white nationalists those white nationalists seem to think so: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/politics/white-supremacists-c...
You're referring, I think, to the folks in the Women's March who joined the march but had a past of making anti-semitic comments. Those people did not show themselves to be anti-semites during the march, so the folks marching with them would not have known to disengage or call them out at the time (though they were widely called out afterwards, if you care to look into it). Contrast this with the folks trump called good people - the entire point of that march was to push nazi rhetoric, and the folks who joined them knew that, even if they don't self identify as nazis.
See the difference?