• 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      7 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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        80
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          7 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 [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            51
            ·
            edit-2
            7 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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              ·
              edit-2
              7 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 [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                31
                ·
                7 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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  7 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.

              • The_Jewish_Cuban [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                19
                ·
                7 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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  ·
                  7 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.

          • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            7 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 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            7 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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              7 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 [they/them]@hexbear.netM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                26
                ·
                7 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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  7 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.

              • jaeme@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                7 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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        57
        ·
        7 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.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Going to bat for “cracker” is really a bad fight for the left to pick.

        No.

        Tailism and concern trolling about not offending whitey is weak liberal shit.

        Are you even a leftist or do you just like le weed?

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

      • mayo_cider [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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

      • KoboldKomrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        7 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.

      • Judge_Jury [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        7 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

        • AlkaliMarxist@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

      • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.netM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        7 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        7 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.

      • 420stalin69@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’ve come around to the point of view that white males throwing around cracker in online forums is cringe

          You’re being cringe for going this far out of your way to be upset about people saying cracker.

          but that’s as far as I’ll go.

          I hope you actually do that and stop posting cringe for a while.

          • 420stalin69@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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.

            • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Im not upset about it though.

              doubt

              Im saying its cringe when white dudes start throwing it around to be cool online.

              That’s you being upset about it.

              For the reasons outlined above. It’s not upsetting to me

              • 420stalin69@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  No it’s just me saying it’s cringe lmao

                  Yes, totally not mad which is why you keep coming back for more while pretty much everyone here is laughing about how “not mad” you are about the word anti-cracker-aktion

                  You’re trying to push me into the square

                  I don’t have to do any such thing. I’m just watching this ongoing transformation from corn cob to a thriving and vibrant cornfield.

                  But it doesn’t upset me

                  lenin-sure

                  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.

                  I haven’t seen or heard from a single black person that ever seconded your very fragile “not mad” sentiment.

    • SpiderFarmer [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      7 months ago

      I somehow managed to miss everything Destiny posted until about a month ago. Suddenly I’m seeing him vouch for genocide, stand up for those poor oppressed super market chains, and other shitty stuff. My life was more serene when I only vaguely knew that guy’s channel existed.

    • Helmic [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      7 months ago

      destiny being a darling of the internet left for a hot minute after he outed jontron as a white supremacist was genuinely an isolating moment. dude loved him some ableist slurs, and instead of reflecting on it like the thoughtful guy he presented himself as he instead brought on some random autistic woman to “debate” why it’s ok for him to say the R slur.

      hearing praise for the guy while he made autistics his punching bag was awful. being told that even the most tolerant and accepting people still don’t care about you, that the people who don’t use any slurs still use you as a “woke” substitute, it made me realise the need for a specifically autistic left. it wasn’t until destiny finally got tempbanned for his use of slurs that people became actually critical of him, but it took a while for left spaces online to actually stop calling everything disliked autistic.

    • machiabelly [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      technically anything that grows a cash crop is a plantation. If a sugar cane plantation had collective ownership it be a plantation co-op. Just like how it would be a farm co-op if it grew veggies.

      The weird part is avoiding ownership and work. “we lived on a sugar can plantation” versus “we lived on our sugarcane plantation.” Her talking about the quaint idyllic life of harvesting sugarcane ignoring the, potentially, hundreds of slaves that were actually doing the harvesting, also strange and weird and sus.

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        A type of double-barrelled shotgun with one barrel on top of the other, rather than side by side. While the side by side “coach gun” style retains something of a rural poor/everyman association, over/under shotguns are much more popular with rich people because they’re good for duck hunting. Anytime you see some spooky old money house with a gun over the mantle, it’s probably one of those.