How does that make any sense? It's been my experience that most people who call other people racists are, themselves, racists.

The theory behind it is pretty simple. Often A will say something like "you're a racist because you did X" but B never had any idea that X could have racist motivations. B, not being a racist, doesn't think that way. Racists do. So chances are (and this isn't 100%, which is why I said this was my initial assumption) A is a racist since they think this way. It could be that they were directly affected by such an occurrence and that's why X occurred to them.

But as I said, this little game works more than it doesn't in my experience.

I took your point to be that people only tend to perceive faults in others if they have those same faults. But since this projecting of faults is itself a fault that you've perceived in others, your maxim applies to you.

My intent was not to actually accuse you of this fault, but rather to imply that "it takes one to know one" might not actually be robustly true.

>But since this projecting of faults is itself a fault that you've perceived in others, your maxim applies to you.

What I've perceived is that when people accuse others of certain kind of behavior it is often because they think that way themselves (and therefore recognize it, even if the other party does not). My assumption makes no statement about me in regards to the accusation (racism for example). You might say it makes me judgmental, but no more than you if you believe A's accusation (or if you don't for that matter).

>"it takes one to know one" might not actually be robustly true.

I don't use it as "set in stone" proof of a person's character. I use it as a starting point. And it doesn't work for everything. Accusing someone of being a "socialist", for example. The game wont work in that case because the accuser probably doesn't think they've seen actual socialist behavior (and usually have no idea what "socialist behavior" is in any case). They are using it purely as a smear.