A clear example of what he's talking about can be observed in the tendency particularly during the "Town Hall" meetings, and thruout the rest of the Obamacare debate to characterize anyone who disagreed with that piece of legislation as "Racist" for disagreeing with Obama. Because Obama is "Black", and those using this tactic agreed with him, so rather than respond to the points, they felt comfortable accusing their opponents of dirty things.
It is very much like calling anyone who advocates gay marriage a "pedophile". Using a highly emotionally charged negative word to slander someone to avoid engaging them in debate.
It got to the point where one day I saw MSNBC focusing on the gun a guy had slung over his back at a protest which also had a large 2nd ammendment component, with the MSNBC commentators talking about how this guy was making a threat to kill the president (because the president was arriving in that location later) and how it just showed the "angry violent racist attitude".
The video in question focused on the gun, so the commentator didn't realize the guy she was talking about was actually black.
The "You're a sexist/racists/homophobe" if you disagree with a "female/black/gay" is a very popular tactic these days.
It is easy to evade legitimate debate by simply asserting that "the TEA Party is racist" and things like that.
It also shows that many people think that simply because of someone's skin color, gender or sexual orientation is not that of a "minority" that their opinions are groundless and based in ignorance.
>being made uncomfortable of your position in society isn't an attack, it's a reminder.
Let me change contexts so you can see how this comes off: "Being made to feel guilty for your molestation of children isn't an attack, its a reminder of your crime." This is what someone in your position would say to rationalize calling a gay marriage supporter a pedophile.
First off, this seems an admission that the goal of this tactic is to make someone feel uncomfortable, as if they should be guilty for being part of what you consider a majority. Which means you're speaking to the person, and this is ad hominem. "You're white so you don't know what you're talking about" is a pure form of ad hominem.
Secondly, unless the issue is intrinsically related to the issue of race/gender/orientation it is an evasion of the topic at hand.
I don't see how cryptography is intrinsically racial, sexist or related to sexual orientation at all.
This line of attack is not a "reminder" it is an evasion of debate, and an attempt to reject intellectual discourse for ad hominem.
It seems those who engage in it feel privileged as if the rules of discourse don't apply to them and they can win by "playing the race/gender/etc. card".
All these security issues are irrelevant because a white presumably straight guy brought them up?
Really?