Nowhere is this more obvious than in the #technology sector and the world of the #computing and #gamer nerds, whose ranks are stuffed full of people every bit as dogmatically devoted to the "literal truth" of scraps of text as any Bible-thumper, except that the sacred and inviolable texts of the STEM-lords are different ones: Charles Murray, Richard Dawkins, Curtis Yarvin, and a myriad other sources who are construed as absolute authorities whose words are criticized and denounced because (according to the racist tech geeks) their words are "literally true" or "objective facts" which counter an imaginary left-wing orthodoxy.

I point out that this is exactly how extremist Christians treat dissent and logical disputation: they claim that people only fight with them because they're correct.

(cont'd)

It's a handy shortcut for ducking away from intellectual challenge: accuse your challenger of being merely hateful, and attribute that ostensible hatred to the crystal-pure logic and reason which supposedly informs racist ideology and discourse. Atheists and Christians alike have made common cause here, united by their racism—which both Christians and atheists regard as self-evident and irrefutable, even as they're simultaneously claiming that only leftists are racists AND also claiming that racism is a made-up concept.

The doublethink on all subjects pertaining to racism and bigotry and systemic bias in U.S. and "Western" society has become labyrinthine indeed, for the racists themselves are unwilling to let go of such words as "racist" and "bigot".

(cont'd)

They have learned from experience that being described as "racist" hurts their feelings badly and that's not a situation which either Christian fanatics or #tech bosses (or GOP politicians) are prepared to tolerate. Therefore these persons have adopted a multi-part strategy for dealing with the pain of such terms as "racist" and "bigot". Their doublethink takes a few forms.

A. In superficial public discourse, as on the Internet or on the campaign trail, racist Christians and tech geeks alike have adopted the false position that "racist" and "bigot" and other such words are merely empty slurs (such as the slurs they themselves collect and cherish as one-shot social weapons) spewed by haters who purportedly apply such language to anyone they dislike.

B. Racist gamers and Bible-bashers fortify their assertion that "racist" &c. are merely slurs with vigorous assaults on any body of knowledge or discipline which is devoted to studying the meanings of words and the history of U.S. and "Western" racism. All such study is, they proclaim, intellectually invalid, mere "woke" babble perpetrated by "cultural Marxists" and other stereotypical enemies commonly invoked by racists.

(cont'd)

C. Now here is where the doublethink gets to be incredibly convoluted, because even though the default public social position of bigoted Christians and tech people is that "racism" and "bigot" are meaningless, mere hateful slurs, on another social level the position of U.S. and "Western" racists is that "racism" DOES have a meaning and they're the ones who know it. Their own pet experts and cranks—who are generally kept off to the side of public discourse because such persons as Charles Murray and Bo Winegard aren't exactly fit for public exhibition—write gigantic amounts of puffery which accuses leftists and liberals of being the real racists.

In order to bolster their case, the U.S. conservative movement has laboriously recruited token representatives of marginalized groups—for any human being may be taught to spout racist or authoritarian diatribes—whom the conservatives proclaim as the true representatives of their respective groups, who have been driven into the reactionary fringe by the purported racism of leftist hegemony.

(cont'd)

How do they simultaneously claim that "racism" is fake while also castigating their enemies as the real racists? The invertebrate quality of the U.S. right wing is helpful here. These people aren't centrally organized even if they all generally adhere to a central locus of ideology and political power, namely the Republican Party. Hence it's relatively simple to keep contradictory points of discourse up in the air: one group of reactionaries can say one thing, whereas another group of less public reactionaries can say another. But I must continue with my list of points.

D. Underlying the false claim that racism is only a left-wing thing is a far murkier, mostly unseen pseudo-intellectual movement, which is roughly comprised by the terms "eugenicism" and "scientific racism", to devise a grand unifying theory of innate human inequality which is construed as a decisive refutation of all tedious concepts about human equality and rights. Basically the racists adopt the pose that their racism isn't some aberration of thought but objective truth, already scientifically proven by certain obscure intellectual giants.

(cont'd)

D (cont'd.) The adherents of such "scientific racism" adopt the rhetorical pose that anyone arguing on behalf of human equality and democracy and so forth is so obviously and laughably wrong that there's no need for the scientific racists to engage them intellectually. These extremists habitually proclaim that their enemies are merely infected with some cognitive disorder, or maybe they're all psychopaths, or all in the pay of Communists—such is the scintillating intellect of the "scientific racist" that they can keep ALL such facile explanations on the table, all of them asserted as practically self-evident and requiring no further discussion, even if the explanations are mutually contradictory.

But if these racists feel as though they absolutely MUST advance an argument of some sort, they usually resort to #statistics, which the racists treat in basically the same way that a Biblical literalist treats a hotel KJV Bible: i.e. certain statistics and their racist interpretations by such intellectual titans as Charles Murray are taken as "objectively true" and sufficient justification for racist codification and regimentation of human society—as decisive refutation of the concept of egalitarianism.

(cont'd)