Has BC got a question?
At the tribunal: is “terf” derogatory or no?
Ahhhh there it is – radical feminists who are in power and are oppressing trans people. Those women it’s ok to threaten and assault. How dare radical feminists have any power. Women’s job is to tell men they are whatever they say they are.
There you go, it’s perfectly ok to call women any degrading name you want – cunt, slag, bitch, karen, whore, terf – if you tell yourself they’re “doing harm” by saying men are not women.
“They are being angry.” Yes, we know. Funnily enough that tends to be when the slurs come out. “You cunt.” “You nigger.” “You faggot.” Derogatory words that come out when people get angry are slurs, of course they are, that’s why they come out. KM’s support dog must have been rolling her/his eyes.
And then there’s “cracker.” Of course it’s a slur. As a response to a snarled “nigger” it’s quite a mild slur, but it’s still a slur. If a rich Harvard-educated white guy calls a Georgia truck driver it it’s a good deal less mild.
What is transphobic and what isn’t?
To sum up, not believing that men are women if they say they are is crimethink and a reason to remove people from their jobs.
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGH
Being in power does not mean there are more of you, and being a mathematical minority doesn’t mean you have less power.
Billionaires are in the minority. FFS, these people.
It strains credulity to believe they don’t know how “TERF” is commonly used as a slur by trans-activists.
To be a slur does not require violence. Many slurs contain only contempt, dismissal, and a sense of superiority over the person being slurred. Saying “Woman is an adult human female” does not imply or incite violence against anyone – except the person saying it, especially if said person saying it is an adult human female (or for that matter, a minor human female).
I must say, I’m enjoying all that power, aren’t you, Ophelia? Wow. I’m charged! I’m ready to go do some powerful things!
In this fight, trans people have had the power for some time, gaining it under the radar while we were all concerned with issues of huge circumstance. Now these powerful people are starting to go too far, and the “minority” known as women is fighting back.
Good luck getting the Woke to admit that one. It’s gotta be intoxicating to know that you don’t need to bother with introspection, because you are incapable of hypocrisy by definition.
Re “cracker isn’t a slur because white people are in power”:
It’s a slur, even if it refers to people in power.
It refers to a subset of white people. Is that subset in power? Can we expand the scope of any slur so that we can claim it covers a wider range of people, including those in power, and thus eliminate the slur-ness? (Slurishness? Sluritude?)
It really, really irritates me that it has become perfectly OK to disparage white people, randomly and irrelevantly, and act as if it is some profound sociological insight. Sometimes it’s appropriate; often not.
It works the same way with “Karen.” A Karen is always white, so that makes it ok.
But what about the FERKS?
As the OP & the commenters here seem to be aware:
A word becomes a slur by being used to dismiss someone as lesser
Even a certain word made up of a couple of g’s an n an e i & an r
wasn’t a slur until it got used in that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw
It also ignores the fact that many white people are not in power. Those called “cracker” are not usually people with power. Even though a person of color will experience racism no matter what level of society they are, I will argue that someone like Condoleeza Rice or Barack Obama have considerably more power and privilege than your average working class or lower class (whatever the fuck that means) white male person. That’s why I don’t like the phrase “white privilege”. While that working class white male person will have an element of privilege over a person of the same class who is not white or not male, the idea that “white people are in power” loses the left a lot of support from white people who see Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court while they are on food stamps.
Power accrues more to class than color, though it is the case that people of color struggle more to achieve the class status. And even when they do, they are faced with people who believe they are going to steal something if they walk into a store. That hurts the individual, and it hurts BIPOC as a group. But the idea that every white person is holding power over every black person is absolutely ridiculous and needs to end. Even if they are racist as hell, they may very well not have any power over anyone other than their own household, if that.
A slur against a powerful group is still a slur. Anti-black slurs are still racist abuse when deployed in Uganda, despite the preponderance of black people in positions of power there. Anti semitic slurs remain just that when used in Israel, even though Jewish people form the dominant group there. Of course ‘cracker’ isn’t really comparable as it’s so much milder that it’s qualitatively different, (which may be another transatlantic difference; it’s a bit of a joke word here, with no real history of usage,) but to the extent that it’s used to belittle or express contempt for white people it is a slur.
The idea that if you’re part of a group that’s over represented in the wealthiest and most powerful sections of society then you as an invidual are part of the elite seems to have a strong hold on a lot of people, despite obviously being nonsense.
Well, the notion of privilege in critical social justice is actually not at all dependent upon whether a particular person, or indeed anyone at all, instantiates the group and benefits in fact from that embodied membership. All that matters is the discursive structure in which various groups are situated and inevitably marginalized.
Damn it. Now you’ve got me writing like them again. Whargarbl, say I!