I think the right knows they're being silly when they act offended by "cracker", and so does everybody else. When I was a dumb highschool kid I recall having a conversation with one of my dumb kid friends about this, and laughing at the word "cracker" because how could it possibly be offensive to us white people? It signifies no shame or perceived lower status, unlike other slurs. Libs get this even if they pretend not to.

edit: just to add, I think all you need to do is point out that anybody pretending to be offended by cracker is really just mad they're not allowed to use actual offensive slurs, not at the word "cracker"

You're right. There's nothing to gain because "Cracker" is too light hearted to have the intended effect. I propose we pivot to "Cum skin" instead.

It's my people's word, I get to decide who can use it in my company and I give the pass to everyone (this is also the only real pass there is)

There's also nothing to gain by catering to people who get pissy about it, but making them angry is amusing

Counterpoint, I am extremely white looking, with Italian and English ancestry, and cracker being a slur "against" me is the funniest concept ever. If anyone called it me in an earnest attempt to insult or hurt me, I'd probably be hurt only by laughing. Especially being from Florida where there was a running gag of Florida Crackers (a historical term/job description), being a semi-common joke slur used.

There is as much to be gained going to bat for 'cracker' as there is in any argument over bigotry being symmetrically applicable to both the oppressor and the oppressed. In a framework of white supremacism, which has been imposed onto the world by western cultural hegemony, all peoples are to be racially denigrated in favor of the "white race." This can be done by white or non-white people, but it can only be done to non-white people. One can be prejudiced against white people and can call them names, and that is a direct result of this system of racism, but it isn't a part of it

This concept is important for understanding any dynamic of oppression. Anti-white racism isn't possible because it's predicted on 'white' being anything other than the identity construct created solely to "be supreme." Misandry isn't possible under patriarchy because its concept of manhood is the same type of construct. Classist bigotry can not be applied against the ruling class for the same reason, 'cissie' can not be a slur, and so on

Cracker doesn't just mean white, it comes from "whip-cracker" and is essentially a term for white supremacists.

there's nothing to gain

"There's nothing to gain by attacking Israeli settlers"

So here's the thing, if you get people saying the second part tell them that we should indeed focus our attention on words that have the power to harm people. White people aren't oppressed for being white, so remarks describe white people (and cracker specifically refers to white supremacists) don't really have the same harmful connotations so conversely why should we prioritize the sensibilities of the powerful over the vulnerability of the powerless?

Insulting? Cracker isn't and insult, and it doesn't have the historical baggage the n-word does. The issue isn't the word here. Anyone wight person that takes offense at cracker will be offended at an alternative term, and if we just said white, they'd accuse us of making it about race or whatever, which is doubly hilarious since wight isn't a race.

Policing "cracker" withthis argument is exactly like advocating for the use of the r-slur. The people who'd hear our ideas and would be more open to them if we used neurodivergence slurs is an empty set, so is the people who'd be perceptive but would be taken aback by wights being called cracker. In a nutshell, there's nothing to be gained by dropping it.

Ok kkkrackkker

if people don't want me to call them a cracker then they should stop being so salty like one