Opinion: The Times is clueless on ‘alt-right’ terminology

To the editor: Your article claims that one can “identify” someone who is part of the “alt-right” if that person uses words and phrases such as “political correctness,” “snowflake,” and “SJW.” That is absurd. (“‘Cuck,’ ‘snowflake,’ ‘masculinist’: A guide to the language of the ‘alt-right,’” Nov. 16)

“Political correctness” as a broadly conservative issue dates back to at least the mid-1990s. Your writer’s definition — “anything that challenges alt-right people’s right to say whatever they want whenever they want, in any way they want to say it” — is so broad as to be useless, since it equally applies to the intolerance of the left.

The “snowflake” concept has been raised in mainstream media articles about the inability of some college students to deal with ideas contradictory to theirs. A more accurate definition is found on RealClearPolitics: “a generation long told they’re special, fragile, and never, ever wrong.”

“SJW” (social justice warrior) has also been used by mainstream conservative bloggers for years, without the misogynistic overtones your reporter detects.

The fact that mainstream center-right terminology was lumped in with extremist usage just reinforces that there must be no one in The Times’ newsroom who has any familiarity with even mainstream conservative ideas.

Gregory Yorke, Redondo Beach

..

To the editor: Stop using the palatable term “alt-right.” More accurate would be to say white supremacists, nationalists or racists. These terms are based on their own words and deeds.

The currently free press can not normalize their reprehensibility.

Desiree Zamorano, Altadena

..

To the editor: You left out “locker-room talk.” This refers to speech that is misogynist or racist, or it is used when a “libtard” is upset with hate speech.

Chris Soltow, Thousand Oak

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook