He was slurred on national television. He was slurred on social media. Senator Tim Scott gave the Republican response to President Biden’s address to congress two weeks ago. He was called names that I would never think about uttering, much less repeating in a public post. The Hill (a political reporting site) gave a fair – yet awful – accounting of the terms and phrases used (link: https://thehill.com/…/550984-scott-uncle-tim-responses…).
There was no uproar in The New York Times. NPR did not repetitiously report on the incident as it might in similar ethnic cases. I suspect the reason why no major media deigned it important to cover the outrageous verbiage is because Tim Scott is a conservative. It does not seem to matter that Tim Scott is Black.
Senator Tim Scott was slurred. Not only did few public media outlets seem to care, but they also joined in the name-calling. The word “slur” has a historical connection to being dragged through the mud. To “slur” someone is to cast aspersions on their name, to disparage their person.
Name-calling, slurring another person, is something we might expect of third graders on the playground. We should call out public officials, especially journalists and influencers, for the part they played. But, honestly, I have given up much hope of any kind of evenhandedness for people who have a different point of view than the accepted cultural labels.
Labeling a person or their beliefs as “racist, sexist, classist, or elitist” carries with the intentional slur, immediate censure. The person now stands accused, is then prosecuted, and finally judged in the court of public opinion without a defense. Slurs can also be applied by use of the suffix “phobic,” (fear) as in “transphobic” or “xenophobic.”
The words suggest not a “fear of transgender persons or immigrants” but are intended to malign anyone whose views do not coincide with the current cultural narrative. To be a person who asks a question, has a difference of opinion, offers a variant position in public policy, or may I be so bold, even writes this sentence, can have their person slurred simply ascribing the term to them.
Let me be *very* clear as I suggest how I think of, act toward, and talk about all humans. I am:
– wary not to assume evil intent. “Motive” is the unseen incubator for our actions. I will not assume evil motives of you in the way you talk with me even if your words are not those I would use.– careful not to ascribe or fill a person’s words with unintended meaning. I will, to the best of my knowledge, care for words I use with you, even as (I hope) you do the same for me.– wise to consider the person, as a person, first. No one knows the spirit of another person.– thoughtful not to esteem a person based on what they believe. I do not label my friends (“my ___ friend”). I simply think of another person as my friend.– understanding when a person uses a word that generates ill feelings. I deplore the use of the term “Caucasian,” for instance, as a term molded in the furnace of ethnic superiority (link: https://www.sapiens.org/…/caucasian-terminology-origin/).– considerate not to begin conversations with assumptions about a person’s gender, identity, ethnicity, or nationality. I esteem people, as people.– a champion of others. I honor my friends and acquaintances by standing up for their rights, concerns, loves, and heritage.
– generous by reading about, talking with folks of different background than myself. I do not assume the good or bad about any group of hyphenated Americans. I want to accept people as I find them.
And in logic textbooks the slur is usually categorized as an ad hominem fallacy–an attack on the person rather than on the ideas.