249
GUSANO CONFIRMED (hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 43 points 11 months ago

Going to bat for "cracker" is really a bad fight for the left to pick. There is nothing to gain, and people who aren't terminally online will say "you're carefully litigating whether 'moron' is cool, but you're OK with insulting someone's skin color?"

But most importantly, there's nothing to gain.

[-] nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net 80 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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"

[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 20 points 11 months ago

If some chud tries to equate cracker with the n-word that's a fight worth having: persuadable people instinctively know we're right and you can educate people by explaining why. There is actually something to gain there, because the reason is basically structural racism, a topic most people do not adequately understand, much less confront.

What's silly is insisting that a term insulting one's skin color isn't racist at all. You get nothing out of that fight you don't already get out of "of course cracker isn't anywhere near as bad as the n-word," but now most people are thinking "I don't know, ripping on someone's skin color seems pretty racist to me."

Picking your battles is good, actually.

[-] AcidSmiley@hexbear.net 51 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

All actual racism is structural. If you argue that a group that experiences no disadvantage based on their skin color can be insulted in a racist way, you're already lending legitimacy to the myth of "anti-white racism" being a thing, or at the very least remain stuck in a liberal misunderstanding of racism as an individual's character flaw that leads to them acting in an uncivil way, not a part of a society-spanning system of exerting power and creating permanent underclasses along racialized lines. Any and all debate around the word cracker is always a debate about the first part of your post, and if it doesn't arrive there, that's a failure to frame the debate correctly and steer it towards highlighting how racism actually works.

[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The vast majority of English speakers use "racism" to mean "prejudice or hate based on race," which covers a lot more ground than structural racism. There isn't a great reason to try and redefine racism to exclusively mean structural racism, either, because individual prejudice based on skin color is bad, too.

When people see prejudice based on skin color, the response shouldn't be "whoa whoa whoa, maybe this is OK, depending on who has power here." The response should be that prejudice based on skin color is bad in any situation, but is especially harmful where the group exercising that prejudice has structural power to hurt the target group. Some types of prejudice being worse than others does not mean there is an excusable form of prejudice. It definitely doesn't mean that the less harmful forms aren't prejudice at all.

[-] AcidSmiley@hexbear.net 31 points 11 months ago

Ah, more of the liberalism. You know there's structural racism, you know it is fundamentally different from this "prejudice based on skin color" nonsense, you know that people are not aware enough of that ignorance and like a liberal counterrevolutionary, you argue in favor of keeping them ignorant on this. Why? How fragile do you have to be to get insulted over the term cracker? I'm white myself, i've never felt the slightest bit insulted by the word. And unlike your privileged ass, i know what actual oppression is, what it means to be targeted by actual slurs. Your position is laughable and reactionary.

[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 10 points 11 months ago

you argue in favor of keeping them ignorant on this

Here's what I actually said:

If some chud tries to equate cracker with the n-word that's a fight worth having: persuadable people instinctively know we're right and you can educate people by explaining why.

[-] AcidSmiley@hexbear.net 23 points 11 months ago

Yes, and after that you have spent several posts arguing why we should do the exact opposite and value the misleading idea that cracker is in some way comparable to the nword, you disingenuous debatebro weasel.

[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 15 points 11 months ago

value the misleading idea that cracker is in some way comparable to the nword

If some chud tries to equate cracker with the n-word that's a fight worth having

jesse-wtf

[-] AcidSmiley@hexbear.net 25 points 11 months ago

You continue to argue in bad faith like the cahuvinist redditor turd gourmet you are, quoting the one paragraph ITT where you werne't completely full of shit and pretending you didn't type out the entire rest of your replies.

[-] The_Jewish_Cuban@hexbear.net 19 points 11 months ago

Yeah I dunno, I think viewing racism this way allows people to equate settler violence and resistance by Palestinians because they're both "based on race/religion/ethnicity". I don't think people actually believe that, they're really just racist morons, but rhetorically I think the logic follows between the two. Getting people to think and base their values on wider social contexts seems to be an important thing to educate people on.

[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 16 points 11 months ago

But of course Palestinian resistance isn't based on race/religion/ethnicity, it's a response to settler violence. To the extent someone is willing to learn you can draw a clear difference there. And if someone isn't willing to learn, what you're saying doesn't matter to them anyway.

[-] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 16 points 11 months ago

And "cracker" is a response to a racist system, not a racist term.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But my point is, anybody who takes issue with "cracker" is absolutely just angry they can't call black people the N word. Every other bit of this "debate" just boils down to, can white people be upset they're not allowed to say slurs? The answer is no.

[-] privatized_sun@hexbear.net 15 points 11 months ago

structural racism, a topic most people do not adequately understand,

Probably because its just a radlib term

silly is insisting that a term insulting one's skin color isn't racist at all

So is racism a structure or not? Incoherent reddit comment lol

[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 10 points 11 months ago

Structural racism exists, but so does individualized racism, where someone acts on racial prejudices even if they lack institutional backing.

If a black American manager gives their white employees all the shit assignments because they don't like white people, that is individually racist, even though the U.S. is structurally racist against black people. Similarly, you can point to racist actions white people take against black people that are much more individualized than structural. Some white asshole who walks into a black neighborhood and shouts the n-word until he gets beat up is being racist, but that doesn't amount to structural racism. He's not redlining, he's not writing carceral policy to target black people, he's not running a highway through a black neighborhood.

[-] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 26 points 11 months ago

Racism is not an individual action and I disagree with you trying to change the definition to align with liberals incorrect understanding of words, especially here.

This is what people are getting mad at you for I think. I don't care how you personally dance around liberal brainworms talking to your lib friends or whatever, but here we understand what words mean and if you are seriously trying to redefine racism to include "individualized racism" which is literally not a thing at all then we are going to have problems.

[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 13 points 11 months ago

trying to change the definition to align with liberals incorrect understanding of words

We are the ones trying to change the definition. No one outside of small leftist communities thinks racism means structural racism only. We can't be this disconnected from ordinary people and hope to get anything done.

[-] GriffithDidNothingWrong@hexbear.net 15 points 11 months ago

Also intentionally calling someone something they find insulting because you know that they find it insulting and then instructing them that they shouldn't be insulted by it is just a silly waste of time.

Its like calling someone a removed and then pontificating about how actually vaginas are beautiful and important. They're not annoyed because they're a misogynist. They're annoyed because they knew what you meant by it

[-] InternetLefty@hexbear.net 12 points 11 months ago

Sure, maybe that's what some people in the west believe racism means, but they have the incorrect impression. It's not commandist to correct errors in the thinking of the people.

[-] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 10 points 11 months ago

No we are educating people

[-] jaeme@hexbear.net 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I too love discussing race issues from the comfort of the hypotheticals I made up inside my head.

"Yes, a white supremacist walking into a black neighborhood to terrorize them is just like that asshole manager that I had who gave me extra work. Both of them were individually racist."

The whole structural vs interpersonal racism distinction gets very muddy once you realize that they both are always present together. You just end up tone policing for racists or in endless circlejerk.

[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 57 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 47 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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

[-] CliffordBigRedDog@hexbear.net 18 points 11 months ago
[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 12 points 11 months ago

Any day, hmu if you ever need mayo

[-] KoboldKomrade@hexbear.net 43 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Judge_Jury@hexbear.net 40 points 11 months ago

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

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 36 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] privatized_sun@hexbear.net 35 points 11 months ago

there's nothing to gain

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

[-] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 15 points 11 months ago

"Cracker is the slur of the unheard." - Sun Tzu probably

[-] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 31 points 11 months ago

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?

[-] AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 20 points 11 months ago

Ok kkkrackkker

[-] Tachanka@hexbear.net 13 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (10 replies)
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
249 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13519 readers
952 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS