5 ms·

> so the people so described want to ... take offense to it. This is very much a straw man. If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have eve

> so the people so described want to ... take offense to it. This is very much a straw man. If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. And if I see a term that is derogatory towards women, I have every right to object, even though I'm not a woman. In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the term refers to. If true, that would simply invalidate the opinion of everyone who objects. But, just like with race and gender, you can object to that term even if its implied meaning genuinely doesn't match your personality type. Especially if you're objecting to the specific term, not to the principle of insulting that personality type. Edit: to make it a bit more concrete, imagine the term "little black men" had been used instead. Upon objection, you replied "no, no, no, the term term doesn't necessarily refer to actual black men, just people that behave a bit like black men". That is very much what the term "Karen" is like.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. There is no implication that women are all Karens, only that Karens are contemptible. > In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the term refers to. But, just like with race and gender, you can object to that term even if its implied meaning genuinely doesn't match your personality type. Except that race and gender aren't personality types, whereas that's exactly what "Karen" is, and it's just the personality type that would object to the term. > to make it a bit more concrete, imagine the term "little black men" had been used instead. Upon objection, you replied "no, no, no, the term term doesn't necessarily refer to actual black men, just people that behave a bit like black men". That is very much what the term "Karen" is like. The analogy to "little black men" would be something like "white female busybodies" which is completely different because it's putting the focus specifically on that race and gender.
- impendia 6y ago
  > Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. I would dispute this point. The term is, at least, derogatory to women who are named Karen -- whether or not they are "Karens".
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Being a Karen has nothing to do with your actual first name. What you're really doing there is showing why it isn't sexist even though it's implicitly female. The detail is only there for color, not as a core component of the archetype.
    - buran77 6y ago
      It is insulting via the sexist, racist, and stereotype routes simply because you meant it to be insulting. You explicitly use the "image" of a white woman in a stereotypically unflattering situation as an insult. In this case it's your implication that [quoting you] "a specific type of asshole" must be associated with the image of a white woman as represented by the name "Karen". Only a serious level of bigotry would make someone pretend it's not racist or sexist if the word can also mean something else, in this case a simple name. It's what you meant by it and what you associated that with that matters.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        It's insulting via the "Karens are bad people" route because I meant it to be insulting. Karens are terrible, even when they're teenage Vietnamese males.
        buran77 6y ago
        No my friend, it's also insulting via the "why you picked Karen (implicitly white woman) as a reference for an insult" route. You may use the insult on anyone else but the fact that you picked "white woman" as the reference means you believe that this is a defining enough trait to associate with them, you consider white women the embodiment of that negative trait and as representative of it. It's the same reason calling someone a "fag" is meant as an insult for both that person (even if they are straight), and for homosexuals since you obviously consider this trait of theirs only suitable for an insult. It's an attack both on the people you address it to, and on the ones you based your insult on. Something an uneducated bigot would readily use but never realize why. They usually feel threatened by everything they don't understand or like (different gender, color, sexual or religious orientations) and "weaponize" that as a cover for their own ignorance. ;)

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. There is no implication that women are all Karens, only that Karens are contemptible. > In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the term refers to. But, just like with race and gender, you can object to that term even if its implied meaning genuinely doesn't match your personality type. Except that race and gender aren't personality types, whereas that's exactly what "Karen" is, and it's just the personality type that would object to the term. > to make it a bit more concrete, imagine the term "little black men" had been used instead. Upon objection, you replied "no, no, no, the term term doesn't necessarily refer to actual black men, just people that behave a bit like black men". That is very much what the term "Karen" is like. The analogy to "little black men" would be something like "white female busybodies" which is completely different because it's putting the focus specifically on that race and gender.

impendia 6y ago
> Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. I would dispute this point. The term is, at least, derogatory to women who are named Karen -- whether or not they are "Karens".
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Being a Karen has nothing to do with your actual first name. What you're really doing there is showing why it isn't sexist even though it's implicitly female. The detail is only there for color, not as a core component of the archetype.
  - buran77 6y ago
    It is insulting via the sexist, racist, and stereotype routes simply because you meant it to be insulting. You explicitly use the "image" of a white woman in a stereotypically unflattering situation as an insult. In this case it's your implication that [quoting you] "a specific type of asshole" must be associated with the image of a white woman as represented by the name "Karen". Only a serious level of bigotry would make someone pretend it's not racist or sexist if the word can also mean something else, in this case a simple name. It's what you meant by it and what you associated that with that matters.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      It's insulting via the "Karens are bad people" route because I meant it to be insulting. Karens are terrible, even when they're teenage Vietnamese males.
      - buran77 6y ago
        No my friend, it's also insulting via the "why you picked Karen (implicitly white woman) as a reference for an insult" route. You may use the insult on anyone else but the fact that you picked "white woman" as the reference means you believe that this is a defining enough trait to associate with them, you consider white women the embodiment of that negative trait and as representative of it. It's the same reason calling someone a "fag" is meant as an insult for both that person (even if they are straight), and for homosexuals since you obviously consider this trait of theirs only suitable for an insult. It's an attack both on the people you address it to, and on the ones you based your insult on. Something an uneducated bigot would readily use but never realize why. They usually feel threatened by everything they don't understand or like (different gender, color, sexual or religious orientations) and "weaponize" that as a cover for their own ignorance. ;)