I don’t think these tendentious language games are winning as much support for your position as you think. Do you object to calling people felons, instead of saying they are people convicted of a felony? I know the idea is that by not calling someone a felon, you imply that some negative characteristic doesn’t define a person. But it’s been extended from diseases and mental illnesses, where the logic does make some sense, to legal categories, where I don’t think people ever had an issue keeping the two things apart. Also, progressives are hypocrites in that they are more than willing to call people racists instead of saying they’re merely people expressing racist thoughts or engaging in racist behaviors.
> Also, progressives are hypocrites in that they are more than willing to call people racists instead of saying they’re merely people expressing racist thoughts or engaging in racist behaviors.
FWIW that pattern of behavior has little to do with "being a progressive" and instead reflects the cultural norm. I'd even go so far as to posit that "progressives" are more likely to point out that, no, there's really not "a racist" but a person can hold a lot of extremely racist beliefs - the same way btw as there's really not "a progressive" but a person can hold a lot of progressive beliefs. A system can be "racist" in that it can be built on and to uphold racist attitudes or beliefs but a person can't be "racist" because racism isn't an intrinsic and immutable characteristic (neither is "progressive", "Catholic", "criminal" or "Republican", to name a few examples explicitly).
But precisely because you can't actually be "a progressive" but merely hold some progressive beliefs and opinions a lot of "progressives" uphold the same harmfully essentialist views as "non-progressives" who balk at being called out for racist opinions, views or actions by insisting "I'm not racist" regardless of whether the accusation is "you're a racist" or "you said/did something racist".
"Felon" is an obviously silly example as it's just a more specific form of "convict", i.e. someone convicted of a felony crime. It's often used in an essentialist way (but of course selectively so) but the more obvious example would be "criminal" because it is often used in a way that suggests an intrinsic essence of "criminality" even in the absence of sufficient evidence to make a legal case that would result in a conviction - or even the presence of an arguable crime at all. "Criminal" is thus distinct from "convict" in that a conviction is neither necessary nor sufficient for that label to be applied.
I don't give a crap about support of positions. A person can't be 'illegal'. They can be violating the law, but they are not illegal, unless we go back to Japanese internment camp style thinking, where the person themselves is the thing requiring incarceration.
Back when I was a libertarian they were pretty big on this argument, not progressives, as libertarians were the open borders people and progressives were off on some other cause.
