Ahah why yes, thankyou! I failed spectacularly at that attempt. Time for slinking off in shamesAelinsaar said:Because I saw your original attempt, and I respect it.Xsjadoblayde said:
Poll: Is Cracker a derogatory term? And can one be racist against white people?
- Thread starter Politrukk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Cracker doesn't have as much baggage as "******" or "*****", etc. so I don't know. Possibly? Though I've yet to find people using the term nervously in public.
It is possible to be racist to white people because racism is a mindset as defined by pre-judgement of another person based solely off of their genotype.
It is possible to be racist to white people because racism is a mindset as defined by pre-judgement of another person based solely off of their genotype.
I'm not gonna bother with the second part of the question because that's just silly (interpret that how ever you will).
One thing I find interesting about cracker is a slur is that while it has absolutely no effect on me (I'm white), I do think that looking at the word itself, it is probably one of the more offensive words by meaning. That in no way means it is worse than other slurs, especially since it lacks the history of oppression that most slurs contain. But cracker has at least some origin as being related to slave owners cracking whips on slaves. Since that isn't a thing anymore, it is actually a very brutal thing to imply to someone. Its nonsensical like all slurs but as far as the term itself, the implication is the worst of any slur I am aware of, even though it is probably one of the weakest slurs.
Words are funny.
One thing I find interesting about cracker is a slur is that while it has absolutely no effect on me (I'm white), I do think that looking at the word itself, it is probably one of the more offensive words by meaning. That in no way means it is worse than other slurs, especially since it lacks the history of oppression that most slurs contain. But cracker has at least some origin as being related to slave owners cracking whips on slaves. Since that isn't a thing anymore, it is actually a very brutal thing to imply to someone. Its nonsensical like all slurs but as far as the term itself, the implication is the worst of any slur I am aware of, even though it is probably one of the weakest slurs.
Words are funny.
Saying "you're in power" to someone isn't offensive. But saying "you're an asshole slave owner, inhuman bastard!" is. Lets be real, when someone calls you a cracker, they don't mean it like "you're in power", they mean it like you're inhuman, a bastard, a greedy asshole, abusive... add any kind of thing that describes a slave owner. When someone calls you a cracker, he calls you literally everything negative that is related to slave owner.Kopikatsu said:
Captcha: history repeats itself
Is the captcha becoming sentient?
The buns shall cleanse the foul stench of shame. A soul shall be reborn anew, given their chance to atone. The prophecy. It shall be realised. But first, to the bakery!Aelinsaar said:No shame now... only buns... Close your eyes now and dreeeeaaaaaam...Xsjadoblayde said:Ahah why yes, thankyou! I failed spectacularly at that attempt. Time for slinking off in shamesAelinsaar said:Because I saw your original attempt, and I respect it.Xsjadoblayde said:
Thank you thank you thank you for showing us liberal math. Your idea that 88% of the population being white means that not enough white people are being attacked by the 12% non white should illuminate your qualifications. This is oddly similar to US blacks being 13% of the population but committing over 1/2 of all murders, even with Hispanics like George Z counting as white.MarsAtlas said:
San Francisco is as liberal as can be but they put Ferguson to shame for disparate impact. Blacks make up only 5% of SF but they commit the majority of crime including bashings. Blacks make up 8% of San Fran public school students but are 71% of public students arrested.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/african-american-top-the-list-of-students-arrested-at-sf-schools-but-only-make-up-8-percent-of-student-body/Content?oid=2920039
If equality existed Asian girls would be equal to black boys in violence and IQ, however 137 teachers in Atlanta got arrested for altering standardized tests that didn't even bring black scores up to Hispanic scores. If there is any possible connection between DNA & IQ it might explain why 1 out of 50 Asian males scores a perfect math SAT.
Chinatowns have historically been the poorest neighborhoods, but had lower crime rates than many white ones.(the UK mistakenly calls middle eastern & Pakis Asian)
The True Face of Political Correctness can be seen in the the 1700+ indigenous little white girls gang raped by 3rd world moslems in Rotherham UK. It took over a decade for the cops to admit that they ignored the crimes because they are afraid to be called racist, if cops won't do anything to help little white girls would they do anything for you? Same thing happened with the 3 beheaded gay neighbors of the Boston Marathon moslems, it was Pam Geller that looked back at their history and saw that a year before they blew into the news, 3 neighbors got beheaded and no one was unPC enough to ask "Who beheads gays?"
1) Yes it's racist, but no one really cares about it, not even white people.
2) Yes, anyone can be racist towards any race, unless you use the (incorrect) definition that conveniently makes it the exclusive domain of white people perpetrated against non-whites. And no, I make no apologies for calling this redefinition of the word a complete load of bullshit. The current definition is perfectly fine the way it is. If you want to talk about the dominant form of racism in a society, then institutional racism is a good word for it. If you have any quibbles with that word, then you can always coin another one that fits the bill even better. Hell, dominant racism seems an adequate term, even considering I just plucked it from this post.
2) Yes, anyone can be racist towards any race, unless you use the (incorrect) definition that conveniently makes it the exclusive domain of white people perpetrated against non-whites. And no, I make no apologies for calling this redefinition of the word a complete load of bullshit. The current definition is perfectly fine the way it is. If you want to talk about the dominant form of racism in a society, then institutional racism is a good word for it. If you have any quibbles with that word, then you can always coin another one that fits the bill even better. Hell, dominant racism seems an adequate term, even considering I just plucked it from this post.
That line of thinking really makes me question how some people operate when it comes to language and interaction.BiH-Kira said:
"Oh sure, he's equating you to a horrible person in the past that used to own and abuse people for upaid labor. But that person was in CHARGE, so how is it actually an insult?".
It boggles my mind.
He would be enslaved in Roman or Greek empires. Even a billionaires son Michael Clark Rockefeller ended up being eaten by cannibals in this century just for being at the wrong place. George Washington was the richest man of his day but he got sick several times on bad water. One of Washington's prize possessions was an ice-cream maker but he most likely ate less ice cream during his entire lifetime than someone on welfare ate by ate 10. The last king of Rwanda lives in Virginia getting better free healthcare than you can buy in his homeland.Johnny Novgorod said:
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/04/03/former-rwandan-king-living-on-public-ass
I don't understand it either. They are basically saying it's not insulting to compare someone to Hitler because Hitler had power. "No, no, it's okay, Hitler was in charge so I didn't insult you when I went full Godwin's law." "No, the KKK had a lot of power, so I wasn't racist when I said you're literally KKK!"Areloch said:
Yeah. The Hitler/Nazi comparison popped into my head, but I avoided it because I didn't want to pull Godwin's law, haha.BiH-Kira said:
But yeah, if that logic flies, then surely other permutations of the same logic should apply to other derogatory terms.
"Oh sure, I called you a ******, but it's Ok because black people have an incredible, long-reaching cultural history and overcame the hardships of an oppressive society to get where they are today!"
Either we get to do that to everything, or a derogatory term is a derogatory term. One doesn't get to change the meaning of words when it's convenient to the- *sees posts about how racism now means being racist + having power*
....dang it.
I have to ask, though, when and why was this definition created? Was it, like the "racism=prejudice+power" argument, created recently because racism against white people does happen? As for using "prejudiced" instead of "racist," are you going to argue the same for sexism, culturalism, ageism? Prejudice is the broad concept, racism is the specific.Tono Makt said:
I've never liked the revisionist liberal suggestion that racism is only "real" racism if it stems from a place of power and directed at the historically disenfranchised; anything else is "only" racially-motivated prejudice, which is for some reason less problematic. That's a definition that flies in the face of the commonsense, layperson's understanding of the word. Is somebody being treated differently, usually worse, because of their race? Then it's racism.
A bit like certain legal definitions that mean a woman can never technically rape a man, only sexually assault him, it enshrines a certain group as being more likely to be oppressed/marginalised - because that's how we've decided to define it. It skews the figures and makes statistics and even the honest pursuit of equality subordinate to identity politics.
As for "cracker" - no, it doesn't have the same weight of history behind it as "******" does, but that doesn't mean it can't be weaponised. It's contextual, just like how "******" can be a friendly greeting in some contexts. Are we really going to sit down and agonise over which racial epithet is the worst? Where would "*****" fit in the hierarchy? Wait, what about "Kike"? Oh, come on, we all have better things to be spending our time on, surely. This isn't the Oppression Olympics; there are no medals.
A bit like certain legal definitions that mean a woman can never technically rape a man, only sexually assault him, it enshrines a certain group as being more likely to be oppressed/marginalised - because that's how we've decided to define it. It skews the figures and makes statistics and even the honest pursuit of equality subordinate to identity politics.
As for "cracker" - no, it doesn't have the same weight of history behind it as "******" does, but that doesn't mean it can't be weaponised. It's contextual, just like how "******" can be a friendly greeting in some contexts. Are we really going to sit down and agonise over which racial epithet is the worst? Where would "*****" fit in the hierarchy? Wait, what about "Kike"? Oh, come on, we all have better things to be spending our time on, surely. This isn't the Oppression Olympics; there are no medals.
Technically it is racist but I would openly call any fellow white person who gets their panties up in a bunch about it a whiney little *****. There's no force behind the word, no matter how much you try to put behind it. Making the case that it's offensive is like on a similar level of ridiculousness to making the case that "gosh" or "darn" are very strong swear words. You don't have to be a member of a subjugated race to experience some form of racism but you kind of do for the racism to actually have any real power.
I guess if people take offense to it then it's a slur. I mean, it's not like there's some formal list of words that are or aren't slurs, it's just a cultural thing. Thus, if you can tolerate being called a word then it no longer becomes a slur for you.
I don't really care if people call me a cracker, since the term is a reference to slave ownership, which neither I nor any of my ancestors took part in.
I don't really care if people call me a cracker, since the term is a reference to slave ownership, which neither I nor any of my ancestors took part in.
Yes, it's a racist term. Yes people CAN be racist against white people. No, racism has nothing to do with power or oppression (same with sexism, ableism or any other ism they make up)
No, as a white person I do not personally give a shit about being called cracker (not that I ever have been...)
No, as a white person I do not personally give a shit about being called cracker (not that I ever have been...)
Not really, the problem is that people mentally model racism as 'white man calls black man a ******' but the truth is that a lot of racism is brown on brown, it turns out that a lot of the peoples of the world hate each other regardless of skin colour.WhiteNachos said:
EDIT: Whoops my bad, yes you're right, I thought it was perpetrators and not victims.
I think white people should adopt it. Like the black people adopted ******.
I'd love to walk up to a group of my friends and announce hows it going crackers!?
I'd love to walk up to a group of my friends and announce hows it going crackers!?
