I’m intrigued as to why you felt the need to pull out this quote to support your contention that Tim Wise took the elements of it that he used out of context:
“I’m going to start a movement to change the name Native Americans — not to mock Native Americans but mock people who change names all the time,” Prager said Friday morning. “How many names have blacks gone through in my lifetime? Colored? Negro? African American? Black? Four different titles for the same human being.”
“You know the NAACP is still the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,” Prager continued. “And then African American — that changed, too. Does that have a dash, hyphen, or not. I don’t remember what was connoted by having a hyphen or not.”
I’ve bolded the elements of the quote that were already directly quoted in Tim’s article and, as you can see, there’s not a lot left to support your contention that Prager is against racial slurs.
In the first paragraph, Prager complains about African-Americans changing the words by which you should refer to them. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to what you claimed he said:
He was pointing out the routine practice of liberals to change the names and terms for everything.
So, no, that’s not what he was pointing out at all; unless you’re contending that all liberals are African American and vice versa.
As to the second paragraph, I don’t see how it has anything to do with your claim that his full quote somehow exonerates him from being racist. All it does is indicate that a man who has the hubris to call his YouTube channel a University doesn't understand the (almost entirely) grammatical implications of using a hyphen. Here is what the Grammarist website had to say about it:
When using the term African-American as a phrasal adjective preceding the noun it modifies (e.g., an African-American woman), be sure to include a hyphen. When the phrase functions as a noun or an adjective phrase following what it modifies, no hyphen is needed.
Note that Prager intimated that it was African Americans that were debating whether or not to include a hyphen and using that as a reason to add to his exasperation about a people that have given themselves four different names. In other words, he has manufactured a reason to be upset at black people as this, from The Diversity Style Guide, further illustrates:
Black and African American do not necessarily mean the same thing and individuals may prefer one term over the other. It’s best to ask. Gallup has found since 1991 that half to two-thirds of African-American and Black respondents have not had a preference.
So half to two-thirds of blacks don’t care whether they’re referred to as black or African-American, in complete contradiction to Prager’s rant. Are you really sure he’s not just a little bit racist?
One of the names that African Americans certainly didn’t give themselves, is ‘negro’. You claim that:
The use of the name was strongly encouraged in the early 1960s, until the language was abused and a decent name became the etymological root of a widely used insult
I’m sure you misspoke because the bolded portion seems to imply that you think that the n-word only became an issue in the 1960s. Anyway, the fact that you can point to the word’s etymology strikes me as being irrelevant.
Speaking of ‘strikes’, the word ‘fuck’ comes via German fuk- and probably has the same Proto-Indo-European root as the Latin pug-. Both roots mean to strike, whether as of a fist or as in striking a seed into the ground or indeed copulation. Are you going to tell me that these facts will stop people — mostly conservative Christians, often with Germanic surnames, it has to be said — being offended by it?
What was it you had to say about this? Oh, yes:
Conservatives try to preserve meaning and context, while liberals apparently discard context and meaning in favor of whatever cause they are championing that day.
Sure. So the word ‘patriot’ hasn’t been appropriated by the Tea Party faithful to mean something quite different to what it used to mean, right?
If conservatives are trying to preserve meaning, will that certain type of Republican hopeful that says that they’re standing on a ‘Law and Order’ ticket just come out and say that they seek to demonise and disadvantage African Americans? I doubt it. Indeed, the Republican party, and Trump, in particular, employ dog whistles all of the time.
I’m unsure how using the same phrase to mean different things (dog whistles) is better than employing a new phrase because an old phrase has outlived its usefulness or becomes tainted by its misuse by other people. That would imply that liberals are actually more sensitive to context, contrary to what you suggest.
You went on to quote Prager:
For further examples of what Prager was lamenting: It’s not an abortion; it’s a “choice.”
That’s both a false dichotomy — it’s quite possible to have other phrases to refer to it — and false. “Abortion” is the name of the procedure and “choice” is the name of the often difficult decision-making process that women have to go through to decide to undergo one. In addition, the pro-lifers aren’t pro-“life” they’re pro-“birth”, so that would be a case of predominantly conservative people adopting new language to confuse and obfuscate. Hmm, but didn’t you say that’s what liberals do?
They’re not illegal aliens; they’re “undocumented immigrants.”
I imagine most liberals would probably say “refugees” for preference, which is shorter than both. Problem solved :D
They’re not hobos; they’re “migrant workers.”
Oh, really? How many of the thousands of immigrant doctors in the US on J-1 visas would you call hobos? Let’s not forget that immigrant doctors make up about 10% of all doctors in the US.
It’s not a swamp, it’s “wetlands.”
“Drain the wetlands!” “Drain the wetlands!” See how one has a pejorative feel to it and one doesn't?
These are words that do not change a damned thing. It’s just a lame signal of “virtue” that you use to convey advocacy for a leftist cause; so you call them something else.
As illustrated, words are changed because the meanings underneath them change, it is disingenuous to keep the same word and pretend it still means the same thing when it is clear that this is not the case.
As a conservative that is hot on preserving meaning, retaining old perfectly good words and only have one name for things, how do you feel about the Republican Party referring to itself by a second name? And how do you feel about the fact that ‘Grand Old Party’ seeks to imply a pedigree that doesn’t exist? The GOP was founded in 1854; The Democratic Party was founded in 1828.