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?"
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"
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.
yeah that's fair. i think people probably glommed onto it as a fun way to mock white people but there's definitely something undeniably shitty about a majority-white site laughing up their sleeves at minority beliefs, regardless of intent.
Re-defining racism to mean structural racism and structural racism only is commandism, not tailism:
Commandism is wrong in any type of work, because in overstepping the level of political consciousness of the masses and violating the principle of voluntary mass action it reflects the disease of impetuosity. Our comrades must not assume that everything they themselves understand is understood by the masses. Whether the masses understand it and are ready to take action can be discovered only by going into their midst and making investigations.
If you "make investigations," you'll find that most people define racism as something like "prejudice or hate based on skin color." They would say, for instance, that a black American manager who gives their white employees all the shit assignments is racist in a similar way to a white manager who gives black employees shit assignments, even though the U.S. is overwhelmingly racist against black people.
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.
You think its bad yet you aren't offended by it? How does that make sense? If its bad then you really should find it offensive.
Hes saying that most people arent going to be super hip on whiteness, white skin and all the difference between terminology and if you call someone whos not already inoculated in that kind of thinking theyre going to just assume youre a weird blue haired college kid racist.
It's a losing battle and especially rings a weird way when its very white people engaging in this kind of rhetoric
Like who are you calling a cracker your parent sent you to a montessori school and you didnt pay for college
It never bothers me when someone goes for the cracker/mayo stuff but I literally don't know anyone who's brain is not terminally online that says stuff like this.
Re-defining racism to mean structural racism and structural racism
It always meant structural racism. Just because colloquially people confused it with "some of my best friends are X" liberal colorblindness and "I'm totally not personally prejudiced/bigoted therefore it doesn't matter that I benefit from structural racism" was a matter of reactionary miseducation.
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 actually come from whip-cracker. It a much older term for a person who’s low class and uncouth. Today it does mean specifically racist whites though.
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.
I’ve come around to the point of view that white males throwing around cracker in online forums is cringe but that’s as far as I’ll go.
Like, they’re identifying with the targeted group when actually they’re part of the privileged group and you don’t get to just disown structural privilege like that which makes it cringe for that group to throw around. Edgelord leftists who hate their privilege which is great but seek to disown it at the same time which isn’t actually possible. Cringe.
People who are not white male teens / early 20s / tech bros can use it as much as they like imo.
Im not upset about it though. Im saying its cringe when white dudes start throwing it around to be cool online. That is cringe. For the reasons outlined above. It’s not upsetting to me, it’s just cringe.
No it’s just me saying it’s cringe lmao. You’re trying to push me into the square where you can say im upset about it because that’s how your script in this struggle session goes.
But it doesn’t upset me, a black person can throw cracker at a white person and my reaction will be to laugh at the white person.
When a white person uses it, they’re being cringe. Like a distant cousin of black face, it’s not our word to use. It’s their word for us.
Oh this has got to be why he's so prissy about the words gusano and cracker. I swear he's convinced half of reddit that cracker is an unspeakable slur
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.
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"
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.
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.
bleach demon
snow roach
deleted by creator
(just so you know, yakub jokes are no longer allowed)
you're gonna love my rat room
Punished Cracker: A villain denied his origin story
deleted by creator
yeah that's fair. i think people probably glommed onto it as a fun way to mock white people but there's definitely something undeniably shitty about a majority-white site laughing up their sleeves at minority beliefs, regardless of intent.
that one's my fav
deleted by creator
Re-defining racism to mean structural racism and structural racism only is commandism, not tailism:
If you "make investigations," you'll find that most people define racism as something like "prejudice or hate based on skin color." They would say, for instance, that a black American manager who gives their white employees all the shit assignments is racist in a similar way to a white manager who gives black employees shit assignments, even though the U.S. is overwhelmingly racist against black people.
deleted by creator
Quoting Mao = reddit tier, got it
Does the word cracker personally offend you?
No, and you'll notice that's not at all what I'm talking about.
You think its bad yet you aren't offended by it? How does that make sense? If its bad then you really should find it offensive.
Hes saying that most people arent going to be super hip on whiteness, white skin and all the difference between terminology and if you call someone whos not already inoculated in that kind of thinking theyre going to just assume youre a weird blue haired college kid racist.
It's a losing battle and especially rings a weird way when its very white people engaging in this kind of rhetoric
Like who are you calling a cracker your parent sent you to a montessori school and you didnt pay for college
You are right about one thing, very white people are indeed engaging in this argument. It would not be an argument otherwise.
You should take your own advise and stop engaging in this argument. Especially after posting this.
🙄
It never bothers me when someone goes for the cracker/mayo stuff but I literally don't know anyone who's brain is not terminally online that says stuff like this.
deleted by creator
No removed ever called me Cracker! - redditor on why they are dodging the 2028 Sino-American war draft
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
It always meant structural racism. Just because colloquially people confused it with "some of my best friends are X" liberal colorblindness and "I'm totally not personally prejudiced/bigoted therefore it doesn't matter that I benefit from structural racism" was a matter of reactionary miseducation.
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
Thanks my cracker
Any day, hmu if you ever need mayo
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
Shut up cracker
Cracker doesn't just mean white, it comes from "whip-cracker" and is essentially a term for white supremacists.
Cracker doesn’t actually come from whip-cracker. It a much older term for a person who’s low class and uncouth. Today it does mean specifically racist whites though.
"There's nothing to gain by attacking Israeli settlers"
"Cracker is the slur of the unheard." - Sun Tzu probably
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
When your circle of friends and everyone else surrounding you contains not a single POC that isn't completely whitewashed.
I’ve come around to the point of view that white males throwing around cracker in online forums is cringe but that’s as far as I’ll go.
Like, they’re identifying with the targeted group when actually they’re part of the privileged group and you don’t get to just disown structural privilege like that which makes it cringe for that group to throw around. Edgelord leftists who hate their privilege which is great but seek to disown it at the same time which isn’t actually possible. Cringe.
People who are not white male teens / early 20s / tech bros can use it as much as they like imo.
deleted by creator
Im not upset about it though. Im saying its cringe when white dudes start throwing it around to be cool online. That is cringe. For the reasons outlined above. It’s not upsetting to me, it’s just cringe.
deleted by creator
No it’s just me saying it’s cringe lmao. You’re trying to push me into the square where you can say im upset about it because that’s how your script in this struggle session goes.
But it doesn’t upset me, a black person can throw cracker at a white person and my reaction will be to laugh at the white person.
When a white person uses it, they’re being cringe. Like a distant cousin of black face, it’s not our word to use. It’s their word for us.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
says the guy who literally got banned off twitch for saying actual slurs all the time lol.