There is a clear way to deal with uncomfortable facts and opinions: simply give them a label. The goal is to get people to reject facts or opinions on the grounds established by the emotional weight of the label.This begins at an early age, when it is established that something is "offensive". For those same reasons, though, especially in a society that is often glorifying what was once held up as offensive, the label itself can feel puritan or parental.
What we instead see is a series of words meant to instead bring forth and capitalize on that same core emotion one initally felt when told, as a child, that something was offensive. With the right emotional buzzword, and the masses will follow an emotionally-drawn conclusion to reject whatever offends them.
"Racist", "sexist" and "homophobe" - or any slur that falls into one or more of the aforementioned categories - these are the emotional buzzwords seen most frequently. We can see their energy and continued effectiveness come into play in the way these words enrage audiences and effective sway the listener to take a certain view and reject whatever is henceforth being referred to as "racist", "sexist", and so on. This power is confirmed when we see two sides in an argument simultaneously engaging one another and attempting to evoke the same power by using insults from this selection. This is where, for example, the energy behind the notion that the "Democrats are the real racists" is coming from.
Does this method of delivering a taste of one's own medicine defang the insult? Probably not, because unless one side is using this in parody and to mock, we usually have the result of each side calling into question the behavior of the other and flagging it for the same reason. Thus, what is most likely happening is each side is extending and in effect building up the power of the insult. To see this in action, let us look at an example - and apply a bit of substitution.
Instead of using a buzzword like "racist", let us make the debate about whether something could harm people. Let's apply it to, for example, the border wall debate. The standard leftist argument is that such a wall could harm those who seek to cross it or force those trying to escape their country to return to harm; if in retalliation, one argues that not having a wall harms people because it could proliferate the drug epidemic (drug trafficking) and bring drug gang wars or terrorism to the host population. We can also consider the harm done to people because the undocumented status of the arriving population will be exploited, plus there are human rights abuse issues (human trafficking). If anything, both arguments have elevated the importance of considering whether something could harm people and, in all likelihood, the same thing happens with the repeated use of buzzwords to augment an argument.
The same thing happens when one takes a different position and tries to disprove the allegation that policy is "racist" - or, in our example, could harm people. This only further pedestalizes the string of emotion that is constantly being summoned and applied in order to undermine air-tight, premise-based arguments.
The takeaway here is simple: look at the amount of time that is invested in trying to fight a label that often speaks louder than the arguments it is used in, often in ways that elevate the sacred cow that the label has become.
So what does all this mean? Should one use the same labels that opponents do to point out double standards or hypocrisy? Or, because these buzzwords are the equivalent of slurs to reflect the driving concerns of those who invented them, should that be avoided altogether? Would it be better to pose in their shoes and take the application of such terms to the depths of sarcastic and ironic ad absurdeum so as to make those same slurs so universal and overused, they lose their power - much like the ones that remind people of nagging parents or obnoxious authority? Should we invent our own slurs, and why?
