The NSM is already in town and even if somehow we were able to magically escort them all out, they are not the only people in this area with those beliefs.

You might be a redneck if...

You ask the county clerk whether your exwife is still technically your sister.

***

(Is this the kind of class hatred you mean?)

***

I'm reminded of a wise man who once taught me the difference between racism and prejudice. Prejudice, he said, was the notion that you should not trust someone who seems different. Racism was prejudice, combined with the power to actually do something about the prejudice (such as deny a loan, or withdraw an employment opportunity). In other words, racism comes down the social scale - but predjudice works both ways. Jensen would add that since the violence is coming down the social scale, it is often invisible. When it goes upward, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Or so-called "Reverse Racism."

Classism works the same way - until revolutionary combat begins. I know the history of the USSR, and it is one of the reasons I'm not a member of the Marxist religion anymore. But I still adhere to a class analysis of history and society. It explains too much to simply ignore it.

You might consider the old Christian saying: hate the sin, never the sinner. We have hatred for deep psychological reasons, and we channel hatreds in ways that are beneficial or not. Simply saying we should not feel that way is an aspect of denial, not a solution so much as a sheet of wallpaper over the crack. I'd argue that if someone is trying to kill you, it is OK to "hate" them; it's a survival mechanism which helps you overcome your natural desire to live at peace and do no harm. If we didn't have that in our species, we would have died out when the cave bears and the saber-toothed tigers hunted us to extinction 300,000 years ago.

...but misses the entire point. We also don't want murderers, rapists, or arsonists. That's "technically" discrimination also.

As Merwyn notes, your language is potentially inflammatory. In most cases (although not all), there are ways to express those ideas without using language that some may find very offensive.

...Sako didn't use those terms to refer to people, Sako mentioned that others use those terms. I think that Sako could have expressed those ideas differently (thereby avoiding those particular words altogether), but it's not clear that the intention was to oppress others. Instead of focusing on the language, I think it's probably more important to focus on what Sako meant with the post. And we can't really do that unless we can see it. Thus, I suggest that you republish it, and let people have that conversation.

Those words obviously come with baggage, but unless you think that words are inherently oppressive (which I think is counter to the evidence), then you have to make some space for people to find out what's acceptable.