Black Woman calling a White Woman a "Karen"

[repoman]

http://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism

Some history of the term:
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/where_did_we_get_the_idea_that_only_white_people_c an_be_racist




I was also taught that racism was seeing some races as inferior to others. That is not the definition used by sociologists or anybody on the hard left:

https://stateofopportunity.michigan...le-being-called-racist-theory-white-fragility

Then, if someone comes along and talks about racism the way DiAngelo does – that racism is a system of oppression. That anyone can be prejudiced, but in America, only white people are racist. And, actually, all white people are racist because, as DiAngelo says:

"Racism comes out of our pores as white people. It's the way that we are."

This is a good skit to illustrate this

 

[Derec]

You already shifted from "I hardcore leftists because they always insist that black people can't be racist" to "held by many on the Left".

Splitting hairs as usual. *Yawn*

And, of course, it may very well be that their meaning of "racist" is different than yours.

I am aware the leftists like to redefine "racism" as "prejudice plus power". But they do not apply even that definition evenly, as their real goal is to declare that only whites can be racist. For example, they will still say a powerless white person is racist, while a powerful black person (for example the clearly racist Clayton County sheriff Victor Hill) can't possibly be.

 

[Derec]

They have been just charged with a felony for illegal use of a weapon.

Kim Gardner is politicizing this whole thing. Just like she did when she released a bunch of rioters. She is bad news for the law-abiding people of St. Louis - a prosecutor who defends rioters and prosecutes their victims.
And yes, property crimes are crimes and people should be allowed to defend themselves from a violent mob who just broke through their gate!

 

[Derec]

at what point did i come even remotely close to saying that?

You were implying that white people cannot ever legitimately consider themselves victims of racist attacks.

no it isn't, and your utter lack of understanding of meme culture

Which part of contemporary "meme culture" precludes a term like "Karen" being used in a racial way? That's right - none!

and i don't say that in the typical nyeh-nyeh forum insult way, i mean you just lack context or accurate information about the subject under discussion - you are literally ignorant of the cultural history of this.
i don't say this to denigrate you, but i must point out your ignorance means your position is hinged on declarations so monumentally detached from actual physical reality you might as well be screaming that pumpkins are volvos.

What history? "Karen" as a slur has always been racial.

so by that logic australia doesn't exist because i haven't seen it, right?

A better analogy would be you claiming that there is some continent I have never heard about and instead of showing me some evidence you keep insulting me and claiming I was ignorant of geography.

not to put too fine a point on it but you spend your days trawling the internet for any whisper of an article about 'feminism' you can post here and scream about, you don't know fuck-all about meme generator culture or the websites where that sort of thing is a thing. you don't have a leg to stand on here, you are so far out of your depth you're not even in the same geologic strata.

More blah blah. Show me some evidence that "Karen" is a race-neutral term or shut up.

 

[repoman]

I am fine with Karen and whatever white guy name they want to be a mild ribbing if we can get Tyrone and Shaniqua back.

 

[TV and credit cards]

They have been just charged with a felony for illegal use of a weapon.

Kim Gardner is politicizing this whole thing. Just like she did when she released a bunch of rioters. She is bad news for the law-abiding people of St. Louis - a prosecutor who defends rioters and prosecutes their victims.
And yes, property crimes are crimes and people should be allowed to defend themselves from a violent mob who just broke through their gate!

Would not the walls of that fortress of a home have been a better defense than to expose themselves on the exterior of the home? By stepping out of the home brandishing weapons they incited the protestors.
Is this what “reasonable person” would have done?

 

[ruby sparks]

So it is racial in that it was showing people being racist.

If a certain name was used because some black men with that name behaved in a certain way then it would become a racist, sexist pejorative if used on other black men not doing that thing.

This is not difficult.

 

[Arctish]

They have been just charged with a felony for illegal use of a weapon.

Kim Gardner is politicizing this whole thing. Just like she did when she released a bunch of rioters. She is bad news for the law-abiding people of St. Louis - a prosecutor who defends rioters and prosecutes their victims.
And yes, property crimes are crimes and people should be allowed to defend themselves from a violent mob who just broke through their gate!

Did you watch the video?

 

[KeepTalking]

Bullshit that it isn't a gendered pejorative. Of course it's gendered, and yes, it has a racial implication. This is easy to see if there were a similar pejorative that used a stereotypically black, female name, e.g. Shaniqua, to mean something unsavory.


I don't think it is a big deal, but then again, I'm pretty consistent that many slurs, be they gendered or even slightly racially tinged, aren't a big deal. At least, in certain contexts (and can become big deals in other contexts, say, an employer saying them to an employee).

I said it wasn't sexist because it isn't about the gender of the person, it is about their attitude and what they are doing. If it were men doing it, they would probably be Darens, but it still wouldn't be about their gender, it would be about what they are doing.

Well, that's a facile analysis.

How is it facile? I fail to see how something said can be sexist if the thing said is not about the gender of the person.

It's amazing to me, you are clearly not a stupid person. But imagine if I called people "Mary" to mean cowardly and afraid, based on the stereotype that Marys are cowardly and afraid. That is clearly sexist in the sense that it is stereotyping based on gender. Karen, similarly, is a stereotype based specifically and explicitly on middle aged white women. For some reason, you imagine this isn't sexist because it isn't specifically about their gender. Fine, if that's the (strange and inconsistent) way you want to define something being sexist. But it is certainly a stereotype about a particular racial and sexual category of people. Go ahead and defend that.

The term "Karen" is applied because the person is female, and their name is not known, but the derogatory nature of the term does not derive from the femininity of the person, it derives from their entitled attitude. As others have noted, when a man does it, they are a "Ken", or a "Kevin". I guess that hasn't quite settled on a single name, just like Karen morphed through a few names before settling, and it is likely because there are fewer examples of men doing it. Saying that it is sexist is like saying it is sexist to refer to me as Joe (Joe Cool, Regular Joe, GI Joe) because I am a man and you don't know my name, but there is another property about me that is recognizable.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, that's a facile analysis.

How is it facile? I fail to see how something said can be sexist if the thing said is not about the gender of the person.

It's amazing to me, you are clearly not a stupid person. But imagine if I called people "Mary" to mean cowardly and afraid, based on the stereotype that Marys are cowardly and afraid. That is clearly sexist in the sense that it is stereotyping based on gender. Karen, similarly, is a stereotype based specifically and explicitly on middle aged white women. For some reason, you imagine this isn't sexist because it isn't specifically about their gender. Fine, if that's the (strange and inconsistent) way you want to define something being sexist. But it is certainly a stereotype about a particular racial and sexual category of people. Go ahead and defend that.

The term "Karen" is applied because the person is female, and their name is not known, but the derogatory nature of the term does not derive from the femininity of the person, it derives from their entitled attitude. As others have noted, when a man does it, they are a "Ken", or a "Kevin". I guess that hasn't quite settled on a single name, just like Karen morphed through a few names before settling, and it is likely because there are fewer examples of men doing it. Saying that it is sexist is like saying it is sexist to refer to me as Joe (Joe Cool, Regular Joe, GI Joe) because I am a man and you don't know my name, but there is another property about me that is recognizable.

OMG that is literally such garbled rubbish.

 

[Angry Floof]

Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot, called Keighliegh McCanney (white house press secretary) a "Karen" .

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/17/us/lori-lightfoot-chicago-karen-mcenany-trnd/index.html

Karen is most commonly referring to the Amy Cooper who called out a black man bird watching as threatening and referring to white woman as privileged.

I have heard that white people are saying that calling someone a "Karen", is a racial slur. I didn't know it had progressed this far in a few short months.

Personally I would think calling any female a Karen (whatever skin color), is not a racial slur but more as in a whiny Beeotch.

Thoughts?

Right. "Karen" is about behavior and attitude, not skin color. You can stop being a Karen, but you can't stop having skin. At the very least, instead of whining, Karens might offer a logical, honest, and well thought out defense of their Kareny behavior, which, of course, they cannot.

 

[Angry Floof]

They have been just charged with a felony for illegal use of a weapon.

Kim Gardner is politicizing this whole thing. Just like she did when she released a bunch of rioters. She is bad news for the law-abiding people of St. Louis - a prosecutor who defends rioters and prosecutes their victims.
And yes, property crimes are crimes and people should be allowed to defend themselves from a violent mob who just broke through their gate!

Why is it that when it's ordinary citizens, you're all PUNISH THEM!!11!!! But when it's someone with power over others, such as police officers, you suddenly become concerned with fair and equal treatment?

I'm starting to think you might be of the same mind as the second amendment anti-tyranny freedom fighters, who, as it turns out, don't actually care about tyranny in principle, but tyranny is actually ok if the tyrant is of your own ideological tribe. (Hint: that's not principles. )

 

[KeepTalking]

How is it facile? I fail to see how something said can be sexist if the thing said is not about the gender of the person.



The term "Karen" is applied because the person is female, and their name is not known, but the derogatory nature of the term does not derive from the femininity of the person, it derives from their entitled attitude. As others have noted, when a man does it, they are a "Ken", or a "Kevin". I guess that hasn't quite settled on a single name, just like Karen morphed through a few names before settling, and it is likely because there are fewer examples of men doing it. Saying that it is sexist is like saying it is sexist to refer to me as Joe (Joe Cool, Regular Joe, GI Joe) because I am a man and you don't know my name, but there is another property about me that is recognizable.

OMG that is literally such garbled rubbish.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate. What is it with you and one liners? Are you incapable of showing why or where you think someone is making an invalid argument?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course the White House makes it about race. The right-wing always makes it about race!

They have been just charged with a felony for illegal use of a weapon.

Kim Gardner is politicizing this whole thing. Just like she did when she released a bunch of rioters. She is bad news for the law-abiding people of St. Louis - a prosecutor who defends rioters and prosecutes their victims.
And yes, property crimes are crimes and people should be allowed to defend themselves from a violent mob who just broke through their gate!

Why is it that when it's ordinary citizens, you're all PUNISH THEM!!11!!! But when it's someone with power over others, such as police officers, you suddenly become concerned with fair and equal treatment?

I'm starting to think you might be of the same mind as the second amendment anti-tyranny freedom fighters, who, as it turns out, don't actually care about tyranny in principle, but tyranny is actually ok if the tyrant is of your own ideological tribe. (Hint: that's not principles. )

Well, he is complaining about them breaking through a gate, when the gate was not broken while the two were outside armed, with one of them pointing a gun at lawful people. And he complains about a fucking gate that wasn't fucking broken! This shit is intolerable!

Here is a link to the video showing people walking through the undamaged gate... and a a dumbass couple yelling at them with weapons. I am sick of the propagation of lies! The truth is out there, easily accessible, but all we get are lies.

This armed couple is absolutely over-reacting to a threat that never existed. We fucking heard argument after argument about how Tamir Rice was at fault for his death! And he was waving around a fake gun in a park, not yelling at people, threatening them.

 

[ruby sparks]

Right. "Karen" is about behavior and attitude, not skin color.

Wrong, and it even states it in the OP article, as well as being commonly known.

 

[Angry Floof]

Right. "Karen" is about behavior and attitude, not skin color.

Wrong, and it even states it in the OP article.

It's not about all white people. It's about privileged, ignorant, callous bigots. I'll call those people whatever I damn well please, and support any person of color in doing so as well.

Funny how suddenly words are so terrible and hurtful to bigots but black people should just get over brutality and oppression. If you're a white person, calling bigots Karens cannot possibly harm you. It cannot diminish your privilege. It cannot fire you or take your stuff. It's no threat to you.

Try empathy for others and holding the privileged accountable instead of pearl clutching straw men.

 

[laughing dog]

They have been just charged with a felony for illegal use of a weapon.

Kim Gardner is politicizing this whole thing. Just like she did when she released a bunch of rioters. She is bad news for the law-abiding people of St. Louis - a prosecutor who defends rioters and prosecutes their victims.
And yes, property crimes are crimes and people should be allowed to defend themselves from a violent mob who just broke through their gate!

I am surprised you have not provided any context for the McCloskeys to help us better understand their innocence:

The McCloskeys have filed at least two “quiet title” suits asserting squatter’s rights on land they’ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own. In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture.

It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate. Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html

So, those protester were not on their property. And as Jimmy pointed out, the gate was open. Besides, if you are afraid for your life, you do not go out to meet the"threat" who is passing by and not interested in you.

But, more importantly, these thugs have a propensity to wave firearms around people for no good reason.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Bullshit that it isn't a gendered pejorative. Of course it's gendered, and yes, it has a racial implication. This is easy to see if there were a similar pejorative that used a stereotypically black, female name, e.g. Shaniqua, to mean something unsavory.


I don't think it is a big deal, but then again, I'm pretty consistent that many slurs, be they gendered or even slightly racially tinged, aren't a big deal. At least, in certain contexts (and can become big deals in other contexts, say, an employer saying them to an employee).

I said it wasn't sexist because it isn't about the gender of the person, it is about their attitude and what they are doing. If it were men doing it, they would probably be Darens, but it still wouldn't be about their gender, it would be about what they are doing.

I believe the male version is Ken.

This has yet to be settled.

A good percentage of the internet thinks it should be Kyle (and having met a few Kyles on my last cruise, this is where my opinion leans) and others think it should be Chad, for lots of funny cultural reasons.

 

[prideandfall]

You were implying that white people cannot ever legitimately consider themselves victims of racist attacks.

no, i didn't. YOU implied that because you're a sycophant to your delusions about the nature of humans, but i certainly never suggested it.

Which part of contemporary "meme culture" precludes a term like "Karen" being used in a racial way? That's right - none!

what part of contemporary meme culture do you even have the slightest awareness of? you have no concept of what you're talking about.

What history? "Karen" as a slur has always been racial.

well it's a slur certainly, but it's never been racial.

More blah blah. Show me some evidence that "Karen" is a race-neutral term or shut up.

prove it's racial or shut up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When the heck was it ever racial?! It was used all the time on Last Week Tonight (don't know if it is the source of the gag).