Black Woman calling a White Woman a "Karen"

[Worldtraveller]

This gonna get complicated.

It's not complicated. People take in new information and incorporate it into their worldview all the time. And are better off for it, too.

Complicated, in right wing speak, means a term might have some nuance that right wingers aren't smart enough to understand.

Like punching up, as opposed to punching down...add it to the list of things right wingers don't understand.

 

[Gospel]

What solution was Gospel proposing?

Wrongdoing by blacks doesn't matter because of historical racism. Sorry, but that means the harm falls on innocents who had no part in it, of course some of them will retaliate. The result will be perpetual racism by both sides.

What's really funny about this whole conversation is that you think Gospel was suggesting that a solution to racism would be blacks owning whites and wiping out their culture and torturing them and treating them worse than dogs for a few centuries. But the point, I believe, was that racism in the U.S. goes one way - whites against blacks - and continues today because whites, as a group, have never experienced white people being treated as blacks have been treated for centuries here.

It's about perspective, not a revenge fantasy, and suggests the reason that so many white people seem unwilling or incapable of recognizing systemic racism is at least partly because they've never experienced any real consequences of it themselves.

Nailed it. I'd also like to add that even if with what Loren says being true (I can understand the concern) none of those racists acts by Black people is, ever was nor ever will be supported and enforced by the US Government. White people have recourse against such racism however black people did not (though black people do now).

 

[marc]

Well, black people often call each other nigger.

Some black people do that. Many others think it is stupid to use that word in referring to each other, which I agree with. It makes no sense to use it. Using it, for whatever reason, the racists assholes are just going to think 'at least those n*** know what they are', and the non-racist people will either get confused about its appropriateness, or see it as hypocritical.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Well, black people often call each other nigger.

Some black people do that. Many others think it is stupid to use that word in referring to each other, which I agree with. It makes no sense to use it. Using it, for whatever reason, the racists assholes are just going to think 'at least those n*** know what they are', and the non-racist people will either get confused about its appropriateness, or see it as hypocritical.

Or, you know, it could be a way for a traditionally oppressed people to take control and own the word in the way they want to use and white people should just STFU about it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, black people often call each other nigger.

Some black people do that. Many others think it is stupid to use that word in referring to each other, which I agree with. It makes no sense to use it. Using it, for whatever reason, the racists assholes are just going to think 'at least those n*** know what they are', and the non-racist people will either get confused about its appropriateness, or see it as hypocritical.

So Kendrick Lamar invited a fan up on stage to sing one of his songs with him during one of his concerts, and the song (that he wrote) had the n-word in it, so she sang it along with him, and was having a great time up there with her idol, and she sang the n-word (because it's in the lyrics) and then he stopped the music and said she said she couldn't sing that word, because she was white, which he knew before she started singing the song he agreed to let her sing with him. She apologised and tried to sing the song without that word, but he stopped the music again and asked her to sit back down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What solution was Gospel proposing?

Wrongdoing by blacks doesn't matter because of historical racism. Sorry, but that means the harm falls on innocents who had no part in it, of course some of them will retaliate. The result will be perpetual racism by both sides.

What's really funny about this whole conversation is that you think Gospel was suggesting that a solution to racism would be blacks owning whites and wiping out their culture and torturing them and treating them worse than dogs for a few centuries. But the point, I believe, was that racism in the U.S. goes one way - whites against blacks - and continues today because whites, as a group, have never experienced white people being treated as blacks have been treated for centuries here.

It's about perspective, not a revenge fantasy, and suggests the reason that so many white people seem unwilling or incapable of recognizing systemic racism is at least partly because they've never experienced any real consequences of it themselves.

I'm not saying revenge "fantasy", but what he's after would cause a cycle of revenge anyway.

 

[Angry Floof]

What's really funny about this whole conversation is that you think Gospel was suggesting that a solution to racism would be blacks owning whites and wiping out their culture and torturing them and treating them worse than dogs for a few centuries. But the point, I believe, was that racism in the U.S. goes one way - whites against blacks - and continues today because whites, as a group, have never experienced white people being treated as blacks have been treated for centuries here.

It's about perspective, not a revenge fantasy, and suggests the reason that so many white people seem unwilling or incapable of recognizing systemic racism is at least partly because they've never experienced any real consequences of it themselves.

I'm not saying revenge "fantasy", but what he's after would cause a cycle of revenge anyway.

You don't have any idea what he's "after." You didn't understand his post. He's not "after" anything, just making a point that you are not getting.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Well, black people often call each other nigger.

Some black people do that. Many others think it is stupid to use that word in referring to each other, which I agree with. It makes no sense to use it. Using it, for whatever reason, the racists assholes are just going to think 'at least those n*** know what they are', and the non-racist people will either get confused about its appropriateness, or see it as hypocritical.

So Kendrick Lamar invited a fan up on stage to sing one of his songs with him during one of his concerts, and the song (that he wrote) had the n-word in it, so she sang it along with him, and was having a great time up there with her idol, and she sang the n-word (because it's in the lyrics) and then he stopped the music and said she said she couldn't sing that word, because she was white, which he knew before she started singing the song he agreed to let her sing with him. She apologised and tried to sing the song without that word, but he stopped the music again and asked her to sit back down.

This is a really helpful anecdote.


....not.

 

[Emily Lake]

You don't have any idea what he's "after." You didn't understand his post. He's not "after" anything, just making a point that you are not getting.

Seemed like his point was schadenfreude, but maybe that's just me. I'm pretty firmly in the camp of two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm also, by the way, rather firmly against generalizing hatred and derision toward an entire group of people on the basis of their color:

Yes, exactly. White people do not need to be protected from black people. I will always care more about oppressed and abused people than I do about stunted fucking bigots who get off on abusing people they think can't or won't fight back. I will always care much less about the feelings of people who abuse their privilege and power to abuse others. Thanks for admitting that you don't care, that you'd rather ignore systemic abuse of black people by white people under a false pretense of treating people equally.

...

No one is hurting white people by calling out their racist, prejudiced, callous sense of entitlement to abuse black people. Die mad about it.

You seem to be quite comfortable with just assuming that all white people are abusive racists. It seems to allow you to disregard harm done to any individual white person... because seemingly they deserve it for having been born white?

 

[Angry Floof]

You don't have any idea what he's "after." You didn't understand his post. He's not "after" anything, just making a point that you are not getting.

Seemed like his point was schadenfreude, but maybe that's just me. I'm pretty firmly in the camp of two wrongs don't make a right.

And you have missed the point as well, which is bizarre because Gospel's post may have been a bit emotional, but the message was quite clear and in no way suggested schadenfreude or two wrongs.

I'm also, by the way, rather firmly against generalizing hatred and derision toward an entire group of people on the basis of their color:

Yes, exactly. White people do not need to be protected from black people. I will always care more about oppressed and abused people than I do about stunted fucking bigots who get off on abusing people they think can't or won't fight back. I will always care much less about the feelings of people who abuse their privilege and power to abuse others. Thanks for admitting that you don't care, that you'd rather ignore systemic abuse of black people by white people under a false pretense of treating people equally.

...

No one is hurting white people by calling out their racist, prejudiced, callous sense of entitlement to abuse black people. Die mad about it.

You seem to be quite comfortable with just assuming that all white people are abusive racists. It seems to allow you to disregard harm done to any individual white person... because seemingly they deserve it for having been born white?

Can you show me where I ever suggested anything about "all white people"?

 

[Gospel]

You don't have any idea what he's "after." You didn't understand his post. He's not "after" anything, just making a point that you are not getting.

Seemed like his point was schadenfreude, but maybe that's just me. I'm pretty firmly in the camp of two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm also, by the way, rather firmly against generalizing hatred and derision toward an entire group of people on the basis of their color:

I am not only against generalizing hatred I'm also against hatred in general. My intention was to point out the differences between what black people consider racism from whites vs what whites consider racism from blacks. The word Karen being compared to nigger sparked my making said comparison. My intention was not to claim that one is racism and the other is not based on the severity but to simply say the word Karen does not have the history of institutionalized racism that nigger (and it's cousin nigga) does. Just a simple distinction I find genuinely hilarious even now. If you look at the definition of nigger it actually has hatred in it. Karen (yet to be determined) amounts to being called a spoiled brat. Whether or not the person using the term Karen hates the person they are using it against will need elaboration. Nigger on the other hand is stand alone.

 

[Emily Lake]

And you have missed the point as well, which is bizarre because Gospel's post may have been a bit emotional, but the message was quite clear and in no way suggested schadenfreude or two wrongs.

I think Gospel and/or you need to offer some clarification then. Because I can't figure out how to read it that doesn't end up being a rather Nelson-esque "ha ha" at the misfortunes that befall "white people" presented as some kind of just deserts for what their great grandparents did.

I'm also, by the way, rather firmly against generalizing hatred and derision toward an entire group of people on the basis of their color:

Yes, exactly. White people do not need to be protected from black people. I will always care more about oppressed and abused people than I do about stunted fucking bigots who get off on abusing people they think can't or won't fight back. I will always care much less about the feelings of people who abuse their privilege and power to abuse others. Thanks for admitting that you don't care, that you'd rather ignore systemic abuse of black people by white people under a false pretense of treating people equally.

...

No one is hurting white people by calling out their racist, prejudiced, callous sense of entitlement to abuse black people. Die mad about it.

You seem to be quite comfortable with just assuming that all white people are abusive racists. It seems to allow you to disregard harm done to any individual white person... because seemingly they deserve it for having been born white?

Can you show me where I ever suggested anything about "all white people"?

Oh, okay. No, you definitely didn't explicitly and specifically say "All White People". You just used the very broadly generic term "White People" combined with insinuations that these "White People" make a habit of abusing and oppressing "Black People". Should I assume that you mean "Not All Black People" as well? Or would you perhaps like to amend your statement so that your ire (which isn't unreasonable, btw) is targeted at "WHITE PEOPLE WHO DO THESE THINGS" rather than at a vague generalized group of people? Or perhaps you'd like to identify the specific people to whom you're referring who use their privilege and power to abuse others?

For consideration... I'm quite certain that if someone else had written a screed expressing their complete disregard for any bad things that happen to a generalized "black people" group, with even less venom than you've expressed... nearly all of us (including you) would have jumped their ass in a millisecond if they trotted out "show me where I said ALL black people" as a defense for their statement.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am not only against generalizing hatred I'm also against hatred in general. My intention was to point out the differences between what black people consider racism from whites vs what whites consider racism from blacks. The word Karen being compared to nigger sparked my making said comparison. My intention was not to claim that one is racism and the other is not based on the severity but to simply say the word Karen does not have the history of institutionalized racism that nigger (and it's cousin nigga) does. Just a simple distinction I find genuinely hilarious even now. If you look at the definition of nigger it actually has hatred in it. Karen (yet to be determined) amounts to being called a spoiled brat. Whether or not the person using the term Karen hates the person they are using it against will need elaboration. Nigger on the other hand is stand alone.

No, it certainly doesn't have the history of racism attached to it. It has very little history at this point. I'd rather not allow it to gain a history. If I had a time machine, I'd go back and make the same argument with respect to nearly every identity-based slur ever used.

The n-word didn't initially begin as a hatred-laden term. It was initially descriptive, having it's roots in various romantic languages like the Spanish "negro" which means "black". It began being used as a racial epithet sometime in the late 1700s. If there's a clear racial connotation for a newly coined term that doesn't have a long and sordid history... do we really need to give it a couple hundred years before we try to squash it? How about we just go ahead and nip it in the bud now?

 

[Worldtraveller]

I am not only against generalizing hatred I'm also against hatred in general. My intention was to point out the differences between what black people consider racism from whites vs what whites consider racism from blacks. The word Karen being compared to nigger sparked my making said comparison. My intention was not to claim that one is racism and the other is not based on the severity but to simply say the word Karen does not have the history of institutionalized racism that nigger (and it's cousin nigga) does. Just a simple distinction I find genuinely hilarious even now. If you look at the definition of nigger it actually has hatred in it. Karen (yet to be determined) amounts to being called a spoiled brat. Whether or not the person using the term Karen hates the person they are using it against will need elaboration. Nigger on the other hand is stand alone.

No, it certainly doesn't have the history of racism attached to it. It has very little history at this point. I'd rather not allow it to gain a history. If I had a time machine, I'd go back and make the same argument with respect to nearly every identity-based slur ever used.

The n-word didn't initially begin as a hatred-laden term. It was initially descriptive, having it's roots in various romantic languages like the Spanish "negro" which means "black". It began being used as a racial epithet sometime in the late 1700s. If there's a clear racial connotation for a newly coined term that doesn't have a long and sordid history... do we really need to give it a couple hundred years before we try to squash it? How about we just go ahead and nip it in the bud now?

Ok, Karen.

 

[WAB]

I am not only against generalizing hatred I'm also against hatred in general. My intention was to point out the differences between what black people consider racism from whites vs what whites consider racism from blacks. The word Karen being compared to nigger sparked my making said comparison. My intention was not to claim that one is racism and the other is not based on the severity but to simply say the word Karen does not have the history of institutionalized racism that nigger (and it's cousin nigga) does. Just a simple distinction I find genuinely hilarious even now. If you look at the definition of nigger it actually has hatred in it. Karen (yet to be determined) amounts to being called a spoiled brat. Whether or not the person using the term Karen hates the person they are using it against will need elaboration. Nigger on the other hand is stand alone.

No, it certainly doesn't have the history of racism attached to it. It has very little history at this point. I'd rather not allow it to gain a history. If I had a time machine, I'd go back and make the same argument with respect to nearly every identity-based slur ever used.

The n-word didn't initially begin as a hatred-laden term. It was initially descriptive, having it's roots in various romantic languages like the Spanish "negro" which means "black". It began being used as a racial epithet sometime in the late 1700s. If there's a clear racial connotation for a newly coined term that doesn't have a long and sordid history... do we really need to give it a couple hundred years before we try to squash it? How about we just go ahead and nip it in the bud now?

Ok, Karen.

I agree with Emily.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's really funny about this whole conversation is that you think Gospel was suggesting that a solution to racism would be blacks owning whites and wiping out their culture and torturing them and treating them worse than dogs for a few centuries. But the point, I believe, was that racism in the U.S. goes one way - whites against blacks - and continues today because whites, as a group, have never experienced white people being treated as blacks have been treated for centuries here.

It's about perspective, not a revenge fantasy, and suggests the reason that so many white people seem unwilling or incapable of recognizing systemic racism is at least partly because they've never experienced any real consequences of it themselves.

Nailed it. I'd also like to add that even if with what Loren says being true (I can understand the concern) none of those racists acts by Black people is, ever was nor ever will be supported and enforced by the US Government. White people have recourse against such racism however black people did not (though black people do now).

Without a smoking gun there's no meaningful recourse. So long as the racism favors the disadvantaged it's a major uphill battle to do anything about it.

 

[repoman]

The template for a disgruntled customer bleeding their nervous breakdown and angst about life and the system into customer service so that petty annoyances are an excuse to rage has to be "Falling Down".

One aspect is middle class people feel pinched in the donut hole, where they are not rich and have tons of money taken out in taxes, bust their ass at work and still can go bankrupt easily via medical bills. They also see a lot of poor people on government assistance who don't have SOME of these worries. Granted being poor can suck.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am not only against generalizing hatred I'm also against hatred in general. My intention was to point out the differences between what black people consider racism from whites vs what whites consider racism from blacks. The word Karen being compared to nigger sparked my making said comparison. My intention was not to claim that one is racism and the other is not based on the severity but to simply say the word Karen does not have the history of institutionalized racism that nigger (and it's cousin nigga) does. Just a simple distinction I find genuinely hilarious even now. If you look at the definition of nigger it actually has hatred in it. Karen (yet to be determined) amounts to being called a spoiled brat. Whether or not the person using the term Karen hates the person they are using it against will need elaboration. Nigger on the other hand is stand alone.

No, it certainly doesn't have the history of racism attached to it. It has very little history at this point. I'd rather not allow it to gain a history. If I had a time machine, I'd go back and make the same argument with respect to nearly every identity-based slur ever used.

The n-word didn't initially begin as a hatred-laden term. It was initially descriptive, having it's roots in various romantic languages like the Spanish "negro" which means "black". It began being used as a racial epithet sometime in the late 1700s. If there's a clear racial connotation for a newly coined term that doesn't have a long and sordid history... do we really need to give it a couple hundred years before we try to squash it? How about we just go ahead and nip it in the bud now?

Ok, Karen.

Lol. Shooting your own point in the foot. Go you. That post contributed zero to the discussion other than being an attempted insult that demonstrates exactly the issue of how such terms can start to be misapplied.

 

[ruby sparks]

Without a smoking gun there's no meaningful recourse. So long as the racism favors the disadvantaged it's a major uphill battle to do anything about it.

I literally don't even want to know what you mean there. I really don't. Quite honestly, I often wonder if you might actually be suffering from some form of what could be called a delusion. I can only describe your posts as routinely somewhat detached from reality.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ok, Karen.

Lol. Shooting your own point in the foot. Go you. That post contributed zero to the discussion other than being an attempted insult that demonstrates exactly the issue of how such terms can start to be misapplied.

Don't worry about it. Worldtraveller frequently lets his personal enmity override his reading comprehension and critical thinking.