When someone has a reference to "Black" or some slave metaphor as part of their screen name it is ME who gives them the "side eye". It typically shows a measure of deprivation in the development of their individual identity. Instead their own "cred" streams from the racial group or the suffering that was had through slavery. They, of course, are made authentic because of this badge that they so proudly wear.
Here is the typical setup in the debate with "Progressives who are Democrats who are Black". THEY are allowed to paint themselves blue with non-toxic Democratic Party paint, covering all areas of their epidermis that is tinted with melanin. Since this is assumed to be the fully fused and de facto consciousness for Black people - they see no particular irony that they are out on a "Sellout Watch".
I call these people the "Attack Sheep Dogs". Their job is to seek out any "Negro" that has strayed away from the protective cover of the flock, biting them on the back of the neck and then dragging them back into the fold.
We must make note, however, that the ritual of attack that they put upon the "wayward sheep" is not done for the purposes of merely punishing that one sheep so that he will never do it again. Instead they do their rituals in a domain that is as public as possible. This is to show OTHER sheep that are in the flock the punitive treatment and social ejection that they will face if they too follow suit.
The thing that disturbs me the most about people who have bought into this cycle of consciousness-less is that they don't realize how much they have become ABSTRACTED from the original purpose of the Black Advocacy. Today they are 100% engaged in the "Team Sport" of partisan and ideological politics as part of the "American Political Domain". If they find themselves in the unsavory situation where despite having won the battle at they set out for and yet the Black community's injuries in the key area that they had struggled over (ie: education) they are beside themselves in knowing what to do next.
Their loyalty to the ideological team will have them refrain from savage attack against the ideological foundation that was adopted among the people and then installed in all of the institutions, with promises made of a grand fix. They realize that to criticize the results and doggedly pursue those who they put in power, just as they did the adversary that they helped run out of power would force them to have to make a true up in their IDEOLOGY with the RESULTS.
When a person faces the unenviable position of having WON but LOST this is indeed a gut wrenching state. (They WON in the framework upon which they set up as the methodology to obtain their results [ie: get favorable people into power over the police force]. Yet they LOST in that despite the victory in the channel that they set forth the underlying item upon which they based their INTENTIONS upon was not obtained. [ie: the number of people claiming that they are terrorized from crime has increased or stayed the same])
When this situation is arrived at the person will little intellectual integrity will simply proclaim that the reason why they failed is because there are some more broader, global forces bearing down upon the plot of land that they had previously staked out. True victory will come only after they INCREASE the scope of their struggle. With this broader plot having been one - the original plot of land will then begin to thrive.
Along the way they also pick up certain metaphors for the "good and evil" characters in their play. This allows their ideological soul mates to gain ready reference to their prescribed reaction. Democrats are "Pro-Black" and the Republicans are "Anti-Black". Progressives seek to make life easier for everyone. Conservative seek to marginalize people.
If you believe that real world evidence which prove the contrary to any of these framings will cause the bigot to voluntarily renounce his conditioning - you are wrong. Once again - the abstraction that has been erected already has him engaged NOT FOR the development of that which he originally set out for. Instead he is merely engaged in a ritual for unity sake.
Thus - does it then matter that he uses the words:
to label anyone that disagrees with him?
His goal is not to retain the integrity and fidelity of these words, who's original meaning were indeed stinging indictments.
Instead he hopes that by using these newly evacuated words that a bit of coping will come over himself. To know that he remains "right" while the other who disagrees with him are purely motivated by HATRED - allows him to retain his fully evolved, elitist position.
The Worst Thing That You Can Do Is To Have Them To Justify Their Own Results In The Original Plot Of Land Upon Which They Started Their "Boil The Ocean Activism".
Once you understand that this line of thinking is one of mutually agreed upon SELECTIVE JUDGMENT and it has no basis in reality in regards to the condition of the object of their INTENTIONS - then you can get past the various games that they play and cut to the chase.
The worst possible tactic that you can use against such a bigot is to return back to the people or the plot of land upon which he initiated his struggle and get him to enumerate the present condition within after his leadership has been fully entrenched. He has been so busy focusing upon the external battles with his adversaries that far too often this is the last place that they want to talk about.
In as much as their ideology is one of INDICTMENT, they feel far more empowered when they are making such assaults.
They are not practicing what can be called a "resource management" dogma. Instead they have a "unity movement" where intentions trump all else. "The means justify the ends".
There is nothing about me that feels uneasy when someone asks me to "Prove you are not a Republican". I don't see the American political party system as the means to the end that I am focused on. Yes I do vote. I am more inclined to focus on those who will assist in the retention of the conditions in my local area. This is the place where the bulk of my daily interactions with governance takes place. I am more inclined to support people who refuse to use the hand of government as sword against some threat, them realizing that once that threat is slayed their dependency upon it is registered in their loss of standing.
If we all adopted a theory of competency development among people, with systems that are as close to home as possible, the overlay systems used to correct exceptions but not being made to be the rule - all of the natural politicking that goes on between people will be done at a more localized manner rather than the grandiose, "Too Big To Fail" manner.
Likewise an attach merchant should be kept into a particular boundary until he hones his theories and can show effective results.