When we use the word "racist", as an example, to mean "a small-minded and possibly hateful person of any particular color who judges individuals on the basis of their membership in a real or perceived racial grouping, rather than on their individual merits or lack thereof" - we can then look upon such an individual for the fool and asshat that they are, and depending on the circumstances, engage in either ridicule or self-defense activities with proper vigor.
When we change the definition to "a small-minded and possibly hateful white (or blue, black, brown, or polka-dotted) person
When we further demean the term by referring to any criticism of a person of color (say, a President or his/her policies) as (for the purposes of this example) racist, we shortly get to the point where the sting is lost nearly entirely, as thinking individuals lose swiftly lose the ability to take such ludicrous accusations seriously - followed shortly by, as a result of our own actions, skepticism even when legitimate claims of racism are raised.
This is not a new concept. One might describe it as the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" error, simply writ in different terms. When folks start, after offering criticism of the current administration and their policies, to *laugh* and call themselves racist, we can be fairly sure that not only the term has lost its' sting, but that through sheer overuse we've diminished the very concept.
Handy example used, and now set aside, we now have the Ladies of the View opining that the founders of "National Opt Out Day" are, by seeking to cause some level of economic pain or inconvenience (oh, perhaps, similar to when a union strikes?) to our
Will those of you with more than two simultaneously firing neurons please raise your hand and draw the analogy alluded to above?
Anyone who disagrees, peaceably, utilizing established measures to lawfully protest (including, within sharply defined limits, procedurally monkey-wrenching the system) is now a terrorist? By encouraging folks to not fly, to opt out (as is their legal right), and to exercises their constitutional rights is now a bad scary terrorist in the eyes of The View?
Y'all can f* right off.
Ladies. Find an English Teacher, by preference one that uses a clue stick as a training device, and take a remedial course NOW. I'd normally suggest a dictionary, but I'm less than optimistic that it would be sufficient to the task of remedying your misunderstanding.
Clue: If bullets aren't flying and shrapnel isn't in the air, nothing is exploding or falling out of the sky, there aren't dead or bleeding bodies bouncing about, or bio/chem agents aren't in play (and nobody is planning to make any of the above so), you may have a lot of things (including strenous disagreement, perhaps with the use of traditional non-violent protest mechanisms), but you don't have terrorism.