Not exactly, although that's true as well. That's probably more important.
If liberals should object to something or someone not racist (or with not enough evidence to call them racist) being called racist, then conservatives should object to someone claiming someone is accusing others of being racist, when no such accusation has been made.
Damn, I'm still having trouble wording it well.
Perhaps names would help. If someone named Tim accused Mark of calling Tim a racist, when Mark made no such accusation, then it should be objected too just as if Mark had called Tim a racist without good reason.
Basically conservatives should rationally have interest in objecting to things like logger declaring that liberals call everyone they disagree with racist, especially in a thread where almost everyone, liberal, conservative and other, has answered the OP question with not just 'no' but 'no, of course not, that's silly'.
Ah, okay I get your point now I think.
The big trouble I've found in discussions about any form of <x>-ism is that I tend to disagree with people to mere degrees, and not categorically, and (for me at least) those are the hardest arguments to make. It's telling people they have a point, just not quite to the degree they're taking it, as opposed to something like "no, homeopathy just doesn't work, period end.".
This was the complaint I was making in meatspace a couple of years ago : we (liberals) were applying the <x>-ist labels far too quickly and lowering the bar for what qualified. Making chimp noises when Obama was on TV was racist, but then so was wearing a Mariachi costume for Halloween. It's like ending every sentence with an exclamation mark - suddenly nothing is emphasized.
And on the flip side, the few conservatives I know were quick to dismiss any claims of <x>-isms on the grounds that liberals were too sensitive. They were right - air conditioners really weren't sexist (look that one up if you're unfamiliar), but that doesn't mean we should just let it slide when Trump talks about grabbing by the pussy.
Looping back I'd say that if a randomly selected someone is found painting another side incorrectly as being a racist, odds are that person will be a liberal (IMO only, and I'm willing to concede this part given evidence). Yes,
some liberals call everyone they disagree with an <x>-ist. But that naturally doesn't mean that
all liberals do that, or that
only liberals do that. And that's without even touching on the issue of abstracting every issue and behavior into a simplistic liberal/conservative dichotomy, when in my opinion the more important axis these days is authoritarian/libertarian (the lowercase "l", not the removed-from-reality Libertarianism we run into a lot here on ISF).
