Words do exist. But they have to be collectively understood in order to carry any real meaning.

Blurk is a word. I just made it up.We can presume the opposite of blurk is anti-blurk, but this is meaningless if we don’t understand what blurk is in the first instance.

I agree that people can be anti-racist, provides we have a fixed clear understanding of what racism is. If we don’t, then we don’t have a clear understanding of what anti-racism is either.

MLK had a clear understanding of what racism was – as demonstrated by his speech. (judged by the content of character, not by the colour of skin). That’s a clear focus and I agree with MLK’s approach and definition.

I find identity politics to overtly focus on skin colour over content of character. At best it is a distraction from real progress, at worst it will set the MLK goal back a few years. That’s why I reject ‘safe spaces’ for BIPOC. It’s segregation. Skin colour over character.

My definition of anti-racism is similar to MLK and that’s what I’ll continue to argue for. Humanism is a good name for it. People may disagree, but that’s just how pluralistic societies work.

Always nice to debate. Thanks for your comment. :o)