White Thugs

It works the same when whites use the term "racist" for blacks:

  "Thug" in its modern usage, as Sherman was saying, has come to mean a black person—generally a black man—who has committed any perceived infraction a white person can think of. "Thug" might have once described people actually deserving of the term—Wall Street swindlers or cops who harass and kill citizens with impunity. But now it's mostly deployed to attack the character of black Americans, many of whom have done nothing wrong but be offensive to a white person's sensibilities.

"Talking loudly," as Sherman had put it. "[T]alking like I'm not supposed to."

The next frontier:

Not allowing anyone to hide - and, especially, not behind taboos.

ADDED - because it reminded me of my interactions with the Hockey-loving racists at Lem's Comment Home:

"It kind of takes me aback. It's kind of disappointing. Because they know. What's the definition of a thug, really? [...] Maybe I'm talking loudly; maybe I'm talking like I'm not supposed to, but—there was a hockey game where they didn't even play hockey, they just threw the puck aside and started fighting. I saw that, and said, 'Oh man, I'm the thug? What's going on here?'"

I Know The Dumb Nigger Vote (It's All I Get Credit For)

I think the answer to the following question is because we, as godless types, are not (usually) as frivolous towards facts as the larger culture. But, I'm aware, there might be other reasons, too:

"The Last Taboo

It’s harder in America to come out as an atheist politician than a gay one. Why?"

Whatever the answer, I also think it's ultimately a product of the dishonesty ingrained in NewAge culture:

As I repeatedly saw (and tried to show) during Mitt Romney's run for the presidency, atheists are ignorantly, too-easily, and wrongly persecuted as "bigots" for merely pointing out a fact - religious and "spiritual" believers act on their beliefs - while gay issues (just like the feminist issue of abortion) are almost exclusively regulated to being argued against the dictates and merits of religious belief, like no other outlook or argument exists, or ever has or will.

NewAgers were using Jesus to, both, condemn and find safety.

These unethical proponents are found to be more-than-willing to blow smoke up our asses - to get the results they want - at truth's expense. Which is fitting, considering.

I guess, if you really want to understand the hypocrisy inherent in such positions, you should maybe ask somebody popular in the conservative blogosphere, like Glenn Reynolds or Ann Althouse, why they behaved the way they did back then:

They're supposed to be the educators,...

 

Obama Going To Hell Gets A Little Chuckle (At CPAC)

It's bizarre how, while Instapundit and the like pump these guys, they don't highlight this kind of stuff.

This is how we got Mitt Romney, you know,...