The ‘ism’ suffix attached to so many words serves the same purpose as the handle on a briefcase : it allows one to pick up and carry around a lot of information in a very convenient way. Hence the expression people use of ‘getting a handle’ on some subject or other.  But the first thing to note is that the ‘ism’ suffix denotes either a complex of belief, eg Marxism,  or simply an attitude of mind e.g. ‘racism’ .  There is no problem with the belief ‘handle’, since the import of what it’s attached to is widely familiar and its main features generally understood . Thus it is enough to say a person is ‘Marxist’ to reveal their dominant beliefs, readily accessible to anybody interested enough.   In short, the ‘ism’ suffix is no more than a verbal convenience when attached to a word with a generally agreed import.    But when this suffix is used to imply not a coherent body of belief but a certain attitude of mind, e.g. ‘racism’, it is no longer an impartial convenience but tendentious, urging us to certain conclusions.  And those conclusions have no validity outside the mind of the person using the word in question. Thus calling someone a ‘racist’ is usually intended to convey a bigoted dislike, even hatred, of certain races ;  an imputation which all sensible people would disown.  But to impute this mindless prejudice to anyone who expresses legitimate doubts and anxieties about uncontrolled immigration, or who takes account of  racial differences,  is manifestly unjustified and inadmissible.   The word ‘racist’ therefore becomes unusable by anyone with due regard for the proper use of language to convey truth.    Moreover, those adopting this tendentious usage thereby  identify themselves as bigoted people with malicious intentions.  Thus the ‘racist’ label actually  fits the user, not its intended victim.  The accusation rebounds upon itself.

It is therefore disquieting to find otherwise educated people using this term so carelessly, and has to cast doubt on their moral integrity as well as credibility. 

Much the same case can be brought against several other tendentious ‘ism’ and ‘ist’ words ineptly and carelessly bandied about by the bigoted and mentally obtuse.

There are other ways than the malicious ‘ism’ commonly used to mislead people about someone’s real outlook and attitude;  ‘phobia’ is a good example.    Thus we get ‘homophobe’ implying fear and hostility towards homosexuals.  An inept use of ‘phobia’ since most people don’t actually fear homosexuals but simply regard them as given to unnatural sexual practices prejudicial to family life and a wholesome society. Tthose using this particular word are also making similarly inept use of the word ‘gay’, since gaiety is not the prerogative of homosexuals  and is indeed a good deal less common among them than other people.  Likewise the term ‘xenophobe’ is ineptly applied to people who have no fear of foreigners at all but simply don’t want to be overrun and dispossessed  by them. Not surprisingly we also find Muslims using ‘Islamophobia’ to demonise any opposition to their unwelcome intrusions.  A moment’s reflection exposes the word’s users as the real bigots.  

We are therefore well advised to keep a sharp lookout for these tendentious labels.  Like foul language they shed a more unfavourable light on the users than anything or anybody else.  And like foul language they have no place in a civilised society using words to convey truth rather than to mislead and corrupt.