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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This white guy at the bar was bragging that he amassed a fortune selling weed and bought some Banksys before they were cool and was now rich. Went on to say that he used some of the money to rent out "places you [me, white] and I wouldn't want to live in." Went on to say that Los Angeles was one of the most racist cities he had been to because Black people called him "cracker." Strange how I, having lived there for years without trying to extract wealth from poor neighborhoods, was never called a cracker there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's what I actually said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
And "cracker" is a response to a racist system, not a racist term.
Story time:
This white guy at the bar was bragging that he amassed a fortune selling weed and bought some Banksys before they were cool and was now rich. Went on to say that he used some of the money to rent out "places you [me, white] and I wouldn't want to live in." Went on to say that Los Angeles was one of the most racist cities he had been to because Black people called him "cracker." Strange how I, having lived there for years without trying to extract wealth from poor neighborhoods, was never called a cracker there.
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.
Probably because its just a radlib term
So is racism a structure or not? Incoherent reddit comment lol
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
No we are educating people
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.