Really, the whole thread can be boiled down to this:
I have a problem with turning my sister's name into an insult. Yes, the fact that it's my sister's name is what made me notice more than I would other instances of turning a name into an insult.
But I said that, to me, the principle against turning a typically northern European name into an insult is the same principle against turning a typically Chinese name, a typically Italian name, a typically Muslim name etc etc into an insult.
Whereupon various people try to tell me that the ends of combatting white privilege somehow turns the means of using a stereotyping insulting name into something acceptable. The ends purified the means somehow. Even when the means aren't actually used for the purpose of combatting white privilege...
I see far too many people leaping from the reasoning that Black Lives Matter is right in principle, or that #metoo is right in principle, to just assuming that every supposed instance of those principles is what it claims to be. Honestly, it comes across as a kind of fetishization of women or people of colour. We switch from saying that they are lesser to saying that they are perfect.
More bullshit. After centuries of ignoring what women and minorities are saying, the balance has shifted closer to the centre, it sure as fuck hasn't shifted over to some notion of perfection. That totally ignores the actual dynamic of the discussion.
I've learned over time (and partly through training) that most people are spectacularly bad at switching between abstract, systemic thinking and individual cases.
This is why, when you get 2 reports into the same police shooting of a black man, and one report says that the shooting was justified and the other report says that there is a cultural problem leading to black men being disproportionately shot by police officers, most folks think the reports are contradictory and use whichever one they prefer to negate the other.
But the 2 reports were not contradictory. To me it's blindingly obvious they weren't. And yes, sometimes I get on my keyboard and yell at the world because living in a world where people cannot hold different layers of categorisation independently in their heads at the same time is absolutely bloody maddening and exhausting.
The problem is not that both reports can coexist in singular cases, but that the "justified" reports are self-generated by the police, often with too little of contradictory evidence.
It is impossible for one to acknowledge the systemic problem and accept every police report as accurate.
As I recall, some of the "blindingly obvious" cases we have cussed and discussed were at best interpretive.
The name of Your sister /brother, partner/spouse
And the name of Your Own Children.......
Then tell me if you would be happy with those names being used?
That
Only that.
Not rascism, sexism, ageism , any other ism.
Just the use of those names?
Only That question is not being answered.
I posted my opinion on that further up the thread:
I have a name which spiked in popularity in the mid 1960s; my parents thought that it was slightly unusual when they named me; two years later it was in the top 5 most popular names for baby girls. It went out of fashion just as quickly; most women with my name are now in their early 50s.
I don't know if my name is similarly associated with a narrow age group in America, but I have been thanking my lucky stars that "Karen" has become the go-to name, and not my name.
Both my children have bog-standard names which have been around for ever, specifically to avoid the risk of picking a name which would be characterised as the defining name for a small age range. (They both have more unusual middle names, to give them options).
And - which is basically my point - that mild irritation is not more important.
The current usage is part of the sexism, classism and ageism that's baked into the system. Dismissing it as a mild irritation misses the point.
It closes down a conversation that could move onto how other images of (wo)men aren't particularly helpful either - which gets more into ally territory. (Like here).
The current issue of Time Magazine has an excellent article on "How the Karen Meme Confronts the Issue of White Womanhood." Basically, the author points out that it goes all the way back to the antebellum (before the Civil War) when white men felt it was their duty to protect the honor of white women from black men, while at the same time the white masters were raping the black female slaves. Many white women still buy into that myth.
It also points out that if you go to Instagram and do #Karen, you will find over 733,000 posts/videos of such women--and men--acting as if they are either under attack or they need to protect their women, or just simply entitled.
Then tell me if you would be happy with those names being used?
Personally? I wouldn't give a shit. My name is very common and I am completely used to seeing it used for unpleasantness and unpleasant people from other people who can also claim the name. I accept that it's 100% valid to object though. I do not say that everyone else should feel the way I do. This reminds me of a conversation I had with my husband about a very unpleasant example of sexism (against women) we saw. He objected as much as I did but it made me fighting mad in a way it didn't make him. I wanted to use a flamethrower (metaphorically) and figure God would know his own. Because he didn't take it personally--and he said this was privilege--he could target better. I think that sometimes using Karen is done by people who are attacked and don't have the distance to target.
Then tell me if you would be happy with those names being used?
Personally? I wouldn't give a shit. My name is very common and I am completely used to seeing it used for unpleasantness and unpleasant people from other people who can also claim the name. I accept that it's 100% valid to object though. I do not say that everyone else should feel the way I do. This reminds me of a conversation I had with my husband about a very unpleasant example of sexism (against women) we saw. He objected as much as I did but it made me fighting mad in a way it didn't make him. I wanted to use a flamethrower (metaphorically) and figure God would know his own. Because he didn't take it personally--and he said this was privilege--he could target better. I think that sometimes using Karen is done by people who are attacked and don't have the distance to target.
The 400+ year history of shutting down black voices makes one very wary of telling black people they're not being logical or fair. We white folk need to do a lot more listening and a lot less filtering and judging. I wouldn't say that just because a black woman says something makes it fair and true and right and beautiful. But I will say that when a black woman says something I need to shut up and listen. There are plenty of perspicacious black people to say whether or not she's on target. I'll let them do that. What black people in this country seem to be asking for, in my experience, is for white people to shut up and listen. And to me justification of anything else does, indeed, look like racism.
The current issue of Time Magazine has an excellent article on "How the Karen Meme Confronts the Issue of White Womanhood." Basically, the author points out that it goes all the way back to the antebellum (before the Civil War) when white men felt it was their duty to protect the honor of white women from black men, while at the same time the white masters were raping the black female slaves. Many white women still buy into that myth.
It also points out that if you go to Instagram and do #Karen, you will find over 733,000 posts/videos of such women--and men--acting as if they are either under attack or they need to protect their women, or just simply entitled.
Birth of a Nation has so much to answer for. Thank you for that article, it has given me a lot to think about.
Echoing @Tubbs gratitude for that link, @Gramps49 . Definitely the highlight - the only light, really - of this thread.
Related: I heard Australian hip hop artist Briggs reference Karen in one of his songs, and I had no idea what he was on about. I know now it was all this. But also - this. Australia's own Karen. And her name actually is Karen, it seems.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, the original meme (Karen 1.0) had certain required elements and IMO, was a shorthand critique of gender, race and class privilege.
The broader "any woman who disagrees with me" Karen NT is just another meaningless insult for women. I got called "Karen" on Facebook for challenging the absurd claim that "cyclists endanger drivers".
Birth of a Nation has so much to answer for. Thank you for that article, it has given me a lot to think about.
Birth of a Nation may be the reason the KKK started burning crosses, but the idea of a white woman being used to attack a Black man is baked into this country's DNA; this is art following form.
It was probably in the 1980s when "mini-van driving soccer moms" was a thing. The definition in the link is more flattering than I recall. Driving a mini-van perhaps preceded driving a helicopter, lawn mower.
I recommend those who think calling people "karen" whose name is not "Karen" is fine, is to try it with your mother, sister, friends. Report back here after, about how it went. You might want to stay out of arms' reach if the person is capable of temper, or is fed up with with being called things.
Huff Post has this to say: 11 Tips For Becoming a Stereotypical Soccer Mom, though shame on them for using the abbreviation "MILF", which I now understand means "mother I'd like to f***", and is apparently derived from pornography. Additional internet searching provided the understanding that the people not named "Karen" who are called a "karen" are sexually deprived. All of this being disgusting, in poor taste, sexist, rude, and hateful. Like I say, please try "karen' on others and tell us how it went. And PFO about defending the indefensible.
I recommend those who think calling people "karen" whose name is not "Karen" is fine, is to try it with your mother, sister, friends. Report back here after, about how it went. You might want to stay out of arms' reach if the person is capable of temper, or is fed up with with being called things.
It doesn’t take a deep look to find family and friends whose names are connected with insult. None that I know of have got violent as an adult because of it because they aren’t fools or dicks.
though shame on them for using the abbreviation "MILF", which I now understand means "mother I'd like to f***", and is apparently derived from pornography.
MILF is, IMO. a slight step forwards because it extends sexual attractiveness further in age.
No one is exactly defending using the name Karen as an insult.
But calling it “indefensible” is way the fuck over the top as it implies it being more severe than it is.
Birth of a Nation has so much to answer for. Thank you for that article, it has given me a lot to think about.
Birth of a Nation may be the reason the KKK started burning crosses, but the idea of a white woman being used to attack a Black man is baked into this country's DNA; this is art following form.
I was thinking more of some of the stereotypes it popularised. It's an amazing film and worth the few hours it took to watch, but I felt mentally grubby afterwards. That's even with the fast forwarding.
The great article about Karen 1.0 doesn't address the issues around the usage of Karen 2.0 - which seems to be universally applied to any woman who steps out of some kind of invisible line.
though shame on them for using the abbreviation "MILF", which I now understand means "mother I'd like to f***", and is apparently derived from pornography.
MILF is, IMO. a slight step forwards because it extends sexual attractiveness further in age.
It still measures women's worth in terms of their attractiveness to (almost certainly) men. She's a mother (ewww) and older (bigger ewwww) but still attractive (who'd have thought this was possible) so therefore worth bothering with. Big whoop. It's just the same old sexist crap dressed up as new sexist crap.
No one is exactly defending using the name Karen as an insult.
But calling it “indefensible” is way the fuck over the top as it implies it being more severe than it is.
But if something isn't 'indefensible' then presumably that's because it can be and is being defended?! But yes, it's not AS indefensible as, say, drowning kittens in a bucket, if that's what you mean!
I still pity anyone - especially any kid called Karen who's now going to have to go through school with the baggage of being labelled as a thick, white, mouthy woman who should shut the hell up. Because kids love the excuse to punch down on unfortunates with stupid names. And 'Karen' is now a stupid name to give anyone, apparently.
Giving a negative behaviour a proper noun title seems needless. Though admittedly 'Jeremy Hunt' was perfect rhyming slang for that particular personality. Maybe some time soon, it'll be enough simply to refer to someone as a 'Jeremy', when we want a polite way to utilise the Worst Expletive in the language? And we all know what we mean when we talk about someone being a 'Boris' - don't we? That's how this works, isn't it?
Worse things happen at sea, but I feel sorry for people named Karen, or at least the ones who are upset or who are fed up. I accept that many people called Karen aren't.
though shame on them for using the abbreviation "MILF", which I now understand means "mother I'd like to f***", and is apparently derived from pornography.
MILF is, IMO. a slight step forwards because it extends sexual attractiveness further in age.
It still measures women's worth in terms of their attractiveness to (almost certainly) men. She's a mother (ewww) and older (bigger ewwww) but still attractive (who'd have thought this was possible) so therefore worth bothering with. Big whoop. It's just the same old sexist crap dressed up as new sexist crap.
That is why I said slight. But Rule 34. There is feminist porn. Body positive porn. Nearly any porn one can think of. The main body of porn is very sexist, however. At least the het/"lesbian" porn. There is real lesbian porn, but most is "lesbian" for straight guys.
No one is exactly defending using the name Karen as an insult.
But calling it “indefensible” is way the fuck over the top as it implies it being more severe than it is.
But if something isn't 'indefensible' then presumably that's because it can be and is being defended?! But yes, it's not AS indefensible as, say, drowning kittens in a bucket, if that's what you mean!
It is exactly what I mean. Some things are so far apart that the comparison is ludicrous.
Birth of a Nation has so much to answer for. Thank you for that article, it has given me a lot to think about.
Birth of a Nation may be the reason the KKK started burning crosses, but the idea of a white woman being used to attack a Black man is baked into this country's DNA; this is art following form.
I was thinking more of some of the stereotypes it popularised. It's an amazing film and worth the few hours it took to watch, but I felt mentally grubby afterwards. That's even with the fast forwarding.
The great article about Karen 1.0 doesn't address the issues around the usage of Karen 2.0 - which seems to be universally applied to any woman who steps out of some kind of invisible line.
Again, the Karen 2.0 usage is not good, but it isn't like the behaviour stops if the use of the name Karen does.
IMO, the real issue here is the effect on people named Karen. And the history of the use of names as insults suggests this is going to be a highly variable and individual issue.
Nothing near the comparisons the OP made.
IMO, the real issue here is the effect on people named Karen.
Yes, of course.
And I still think that this use of "Karen" doesn't really compare to the other names-as-insults that people have brought up on this thread. "Karen" feels like it has a much more personal and direct association that people named "Karen" are likely to be entitled racists.
[
IMO, the real issue here is the effect on people named Karen. And the history of the use of names as insults suggests this is going to be a highly variable and individual issue.
Nothing near the comparisons the OP made.
What comparisons do you think the OP made that weren't about the effect on individual people????
Because the comparison I made was:
They would be outraged if someone, for example, used a generic Italian-sounding or Chinese-sounding name to refer to a person of that ethnicity.
Have you really been arguing all this time because you think this comparison didn't work?
All the stuff about lives under threat and so on, that came later. Mostly from you. The comparison I made was about the misuse of names. The End.
[
IMO, the real issue here is the effect on people named Karen. And the history of the use of names as insults suggests this is going to be a highly variable and individual issue.
Nothing near the comparisons the OP made.
What comparisons do you think the OP made that weren't about the effect on individual people????
Because the comparison I made was:
They would be outraged if someone, for example, used a generic Italian-sounding or Chinese-sounding name to refer to a person of that ethnicity.
Which is just a fucking stupid argument and it directly links to racism. If you only meant the misuse, you'd have been better using the name Dick or Fanny.
But you called using Karen Racist, which is fucking stupid.
You called it sexist, which you did incorrectly before jumping onto the Karen 2.0 bandwagon.
You called it ageist, which you did incorrectly before jumping onto the Karen 2.0 bandwagon.
You steered the issue far from its proper shore from the fucking beginning.
Oh for fuck's sake lilbuddha, life would be a hell of a lot easier for a lot of people on this forum if you took about 15% of your moral crusading and transferred it to reading comprehension.
I have vivid memories from my first stint on the Ship on how you would head off in some direction and it might take half a dozen of your posts and 3 or 4 people to get you to climb down off your galloping high horse and apologise for misreading or misinterpreting what someone had said. All that's changed in the meantime is that stopping you is pretty well impossible.
Karen as an insult is directed at a particular demographic. It's white. It's female. Pretending otherwise is fucking idiotic. I don't know what the generic term is for a person who looks like YOU and who throws their weight around as if the whole world has to listen to them, but quit volunteering for the job.
Oh for fuck's sake lilbuddha, life would be a hell of a lot easier for a lot of people on this forum if you took about 15% of your moral crusading and transferred it to reading comprehension.
I have vivid memories from my first stint on the Ship on how you would head off in some direction and it might take half a dozen of your posts and 3 or 4 people to get you to climb down off your galloping high horse and apologise for misreading or misinterpreting what someone had said. All that's changed in the meantime is that stopping you is pretty well impossible.
Karen as an insult is directed at a particular demographic. It's white. It's female. Pretending otherwise is fucking idiotic. I don't know what the generic term is for a person who looks like YOU and who throws their weight around as if the whole world has to listen to them, but quit volunteering for the job.
I explained why that doesn't make it racist towards the white women. Not my fault you do not have the ability to comprehend that. Even Tubbs, your most vociferous ally on the Karen 2.0 front, doesn't use racism in her description.
In many arguments, you pretend that you are about accuracy, here you are not. Why?
Oh for fuck's sake lilbuddha, life would be a hell of a lot easier for a lot of people on this forum if you took about 15% of your moral crusading and transferred it to reading comprehension.
I have vivid memories from my first stint on the Ship on how you would head off in some direction and it might take half a dozen of your posts and 3 or 4 people to get you to climb down off your galloping high horse and apologise for misreading or misinterpreting what someone had said. All that's changed in the meantime is that stopping you is pretty well impossible.
Karen as an insult is directed at a particular demographic. It's white. It's female. Pretending otherwise is fucking idiotic. I don't know what the generic term is for a person who looks like YOU and who throws their weight around as if the whole world has to listen to them, but quit volunteering for the job.
I explained why that doesn't make it racist towards the white women. Not my fault you do not have the ability to comprehend that. Even Tubbs, your most vociferous ally on the Karen 2.0 front, doesn't use racism in her description.
In many arguments, you pretend that you are about accuracy, here you are not. Why?
I didn't use racism in MY description either, you fucking moron. The word does not appear.
It's an insult directed at white and female. I don't give a damn if you argue that "it's not racist" because it's supposedly only used as an insult directed at white women who are behaving badly, it's an insult that is only used at WHITE WOMEN who are behaving badly. Not at the lilbuddhas of this world when they're being self-righteous arseholes (arseholes being something that everyone has).
It's an insult that presupposes that there's something about being a white woman that is more important than the actual damn behaviour. Do. You. Understand? It takes a name that is seen as characteristic of white women and makes that a label for a behaviour. If you want to criticise a white woman who's being an arsehole, focus on the behaviour. Which half of "white woman who's being an arsehole" is important? Who gives a shit about her skin colour or gender?
I comprehend just fine, you twit. Just because I comprehend doesn't have to mean that I agree.
I think I'm going to start calling Muslim terrorists 'Muhammads'. Or maybe 'Abduls'. I haven't quite decided... 'Abduls' is shorter.
Of course, the pandemic seems to have really reduced the number of Abduls you see. I mean, there's not a lot of point right now. No reason for a bunch of Abduls to go shooting up the restaurants or stadiums in Paris if there's hardly anyone in them. What dumb Abdul would blow up a train with no-one in it? And an Abdul can't drive a truck through a crowd when there isn't any crowd.
But I reckon they'll be back. Once things are back to normal, you'll be seeing Abduls again everywhere.
Brown women who speak out are ignored or denigrated out of hand. Only white women have the power and the protection to cause the havoc that the term originally referenced.
Calling them out is calling out white privilege. That you cannot see that is white privilege writ large.
Brown women who speak out are ignored or denigrated out of hand. Only white women have the power and the protection to cause the havoc that the term originally referenced.
Calling them out is calling out white privilege. That you cannot see that is white privilege writ large.
Nice one. Apparently you only care about women. And of course, you're spectacularly ignoring that (even according to you) only some white women do this.
But still, let's focus on the fact that they're women and white, not on what they're doing. Let's not focus on the bit that can be changed, just the bit that can't.
That you cannot see that the more important part of white privilege is the PRIVILEGE part is obsession writ large. You care so much about the adjective and not the noun.
I find it actually kind of hilarious that you think privilege is innate to white people more than I do. Well, we're never gonna get rid of it, are we? I mean, you can't stop white people being WHITE.
Let me just spell it out for you, in the wild hope that you turn your blinkers in the right direction.
Karen is a name associated with whiteness. Not with privilege. That you cannot see that the bigger problem with white privilege is its privilege rather than its whiteness tells me you're never going to make the slightest headway in erasing white privilege.
You keep acting as if I can't see the existence of the problem just because I complain about the label that was applied to it. Which is just so frustratingly, mind-numbingly stupid. Over and over you use various terms to rail about white privilege and racism as if I said a single fucking damn thing to deny the reality of how the world actually works. You keep knocking down the straw figure of hate you lovingly created.
I mean, if I or one of my colleagues said that we can't use the term "wage theft" because a failure to pay an employee the money they are owed is not theft**, you'd spend the next 2 fucking hours jumping up and down about how we don't care about the treatment of casual staff and underprivileged people (I'm sure "wage theft" happens a lot to people of colour), we support corporate greed etc etc.
You're simply the kind of person who cannot have a discussion about LANGUAGE without making it about the thing the language is supposedly describing.
**This is a real life example. And I've really had to deal with people who haven't got the point.
You know, my anger with your bizarre logic has faded and all I have left for you is pity. Regardless, mr Quixote, tilt at your imagined castles by yourself, it is no longer worth my time to engage you.
I mean, if I or one of my colleagues said that we can't use the term "wage theft" because a failure to pay an employee the money they are owed is not theft**, you'd spend the next 2 fucking hours jumping up and down about how we don't care about the treatment of casual staff and underprivileged people (I'm sure "wage theft" happens a lot to people of colour), we support corporate greed etc etc.
You're simply the kind of person who cannot have a discussion about LANGUAGE without making it about the thing the language is supposedly describing.
**This is a real life example. And I've really had to deal with people who haven't got the point.
I mean, if I or one of my colleagues said that we can't use the term "wage theft" because a failure to pay an employee the money they are owed is not theft**, you'd spend the next 2 fucking hours jumping up and down about how we don't care about the treatment of casual staff and underprivileged people (I'm sure "wage theft" happens a lot to people of colour), we support corporate greed etc etc.
You're simply the kind of person who cannot have a discussion about LANGUAGE without making it about the thing the language is supposedly describing.
**This is a real life example. And I've really had to deal with people who haven't got the point.
What is it then ? Fraud ?
Probably not, though that might depend on the exact definition in some places. No money has been taken.
I mean, if I or one of my colleagues said that we can't use the term "wage theft" because a failure to pay an employee the money they are owed is not theft**, you'd spend the next 2 fucking hours jumping up and down about how we don't care about the treatment of casual staff and underprivileged people (I'm sure "wage theft" happens a lot to people of colour), we support corporate greed etc etc.
You're simply the kind of person who cannot have a discussion about LANGUAGE without making it about the thing the language is supposedly describing.
**This is a real life example. And I've really had to deal with people who haven't got the point.
What is it then ? Fraud ?
Probably not, though that might depend on the exact definition in some places. No money has been taken.
It's a breach of contract.
The fruit of labour has been taken, and the agreed price for it not paid. That's theft just as much as shoplifting or driving away from a petrol station without paying. And yes, I would think someone quibbling about the semantics of it likely didn't give much of a shit about the fact of it happening.
The fruit of labour has been taken, and the agreed price for it not paid. That's theft just as much as shoplifting or driving away from a petrol station without paying.
LOL. Look up. There's a point sailing waaaaaaaay over your head.
You think the thing that has been "taken" is "the fruit of labour", eh? Tell me what this fruit looks like...
Labour has been supplied. It wasn't paid for. The employment contract involves 2 parties GIVING things to each other. One gives labour. The other gives money in return.
And yes, I would think someone quibbling about the semantics of it likely didn't give much of a shit about the fact of it happening.
Well, that's just stupidity on your part. The point about "quibbling about the semantics" is that if you try to prosecute the employer for theft, you'll get nowhere. Understand? If the goal is to get the employer and punish the employer, I'm telling you that you have to find a different way to do it, BECAUSE I give a shit.
There's a real, practical point to what YOU think is "quibbling about the semantics", just because YOU don't fucking understand the significance of the "semantics" and think that "theft" is merely a word rather than a concept with a series of vitally important elements.
I'm not going to bow down to your inferior legal knowledge just because you want to be fucking outraged and pass judgement on me. Go loot a shop or something.
I thought as much, your problem seems to be you expect the rest of the world to interact with language as if it were a legal text. You don’t seem to get that your pedantry is ‘read’ as indifference, not just in that particular context - but in general.
Rather as if you stood outside a burning building, someone asked your to call a fire engine - and you said that was impossible there is only a fire appliance and it doesn’t have a phone number. Technically you’d be right, and most people would assume that the fact you are standing there having the argument means you haven’t called the emergency services.
They go spare, and ten minutes later you mention in passing of course you dialled for help there was a building on fire - and then you wonder why they are still annoyed with you.
I thought as much, your problem seems to be you expect the rest of the world to interact with language as if it were a legal text. You don’t seem to get that your pedantry is ‘read’ as indifference, not just in that particular context - but in general.
Rather as if you stood outside a burning building, someone asked your to call a fire engine - and you said that was impossible there is only a fire appliance and it doesn’t have a phone number. Technically you’d be right, and most people would assume that the fact you are standing there having the argument means you haven’t called the emergency services.
They go spare, and ten minutes later you mention in passing of course you dialled for help there was a building on fire - and then you wonder why they are still annoyed with you.
Ah, I see. So in other words, in order to start a thread about the misuse of my sister's name as an insult, I'm required to write... how many pages would you like my discussion of the state of the world, the universal declaration of human rights, climate change, children starving in Africa, Black Lives Matter and whether Trump should have been impeached should be?
This is just another form of whataboutism. It's the logical fallacy that you can fill in everything that I don't mention. And it IS a logical fallacy. And you expect me to be responsible for people's assumptions.
No, I expect people to read things like the opening post of a thread and the heading. The thread is called "Karen". Not "White women have it worse than anyone".
I expect people to read "so-called wage theft is not actually theft" and not fucking transform it into "wage theft is fine by me". If people add in a whole pile of assumptions rather than ask questions, that's their fault not mine. Contrast YOUR perfectly okay response of asking what it is, with someone else's response.
The fruit of labour has been taken, and the agreed price for it not paid. That's theft just as much as shoplifting or driving away from a petrol station without paying.
LOL. Look up. There's a point sailing waaaaaaaay over your head.
You think the thing that has been "taken" is "the fruit of labour", eh? Tell me what this fruit looks like...
Labour has been supplied. It wasn't paid for. The employment contract involves 2 parties GIVING things to each other. One gives labour. The other gives money in return.
And yes, I would think someone quibbling about the semantics of it likely didn't give much of a shit about the fact of it happening.
Well, that's just stupidity on your part. The point about "quibbling about the semantics" is that if you try to prosecute the employer for theft, you'll get nowhere. Understand? If the goal is to get the employer and punish the employer, I'm telling you that you have to find a different way to do it, BECAUSE I give a shit.
There's a real, practical point to what YOU think is "quibbling about the semantics", just because YOU don't fucking understand the significance of the "semantics" and think that "theft" is merely a word rather than a concept with a series of vitally important elements.
I'm not going to bow down to your inferior legal knowledge just because you want to be fucking outraged and pass judgement on me. Go loot a shop or something.
FFS not all theft is defined that way by law. Words can have a technical, legal meaning and a logical meaning that are not the same. Do you think when anarchists say "property is theft" that they think that anyone owning property can be convicted of theft under current laws? Are you really that fucking stupid, or is it just that your head is so far up your own arse that it and your elbow now occupy the same location?
Oh, and if you were really trying to help someone, you'd signpost them to how to deal with their employer, not pick fault with the language used to describe the situation.
I mean, if I or one of my colleagues said that we can't use the term "wage theft" because a failure to pay an employee the money they are owed is not theft**, you'd spend the next 2 fucking hours jumping up and down about how we don't care about the treatment of casual staff and underprivileged people (I'm sure "wage theft" happens a lot to people of colour), we support corporate greed etc etc.
You're simply the kind of person who cannot have a discussion about LANGUAGE without making it about the thing the language is supposedly describing.
**This is a real life example. And I've really had to deal with people who haven't got the point.
What is it then ? Fraud ?
It is at least a breach of contract. If the job is covered by an industrial award, it would not only give rise to a civil action for recovery of the underpaid money, there would also be an offence for breaching the award.
If people add in a whole pile of assumptions rather than ask questions, that's their fault not mine. Contrast YOUR perfectly okay response of asking what it is, with someone else's response.
Communication doesn’t happen in a vacuum, understanding how contexts work in person and in text is part of communication skill.
If someone on facebook reposts new stories on a regular basis, and those stories are always of black on white violence - every time - however, true each individual case is; you start to wonder, why are they doing that ? The act of creating a pattern of posts is a communication as well as what they actually post (intentional or not).
I find it difficult to believe you haven’t previously noticed that much communication is non-verbal and non textual.
I thought as much, your problem seems to be you expect the rest of the world to interact with language as if it were a legal text. You don’t seem to get that your pedantry is ‘read’ as indifference, not just in that particular context - but in general.
IMO, you give him too much credit. He began this with an incorrect premise and an inapt comparison and has spent the thread trying to build a case that has no cohesion. If he were merely being a pedant and ignoring the way communication actually works, it would be annoying enough. But he compounds it by constructing a faulty argument from the very beginning.
Basically - roadworks on a main road, traffic lights, tailbacks. Drivers are taking a convoluted route through a residential area to bypass the traffic lights, driving too fast. Speed camera data confirms that the Council are coining it in in fines, with cars being clocked at driving up to 50mph in a 30mph zone. There was a near accident when a car couldn't stop in time at a pedestrian crossing. Local news reported "a resident" (name, sex and age not given) complaining about drivers using the area as a temporary rat-run (not safe for my children etc etc).
In response to this a man, named as "Gary" said that complaining about drivers driving along a public road is "peak Karen."
It must grate on any woman whose name actually is Karen, that "Karen" can be used as a casual insult, and it grates on me that it's being used to shut down someone voicing a perfectly reasonable concern.
Comments
More bullshit. After centuries of ignoring what women and minorities are saying, the balance has shifted closer to the centre, it sure as fuck hasn't shifted over to some notion of perfection. That totally ignores the actual dynamic of the discussion. The problem is not that both reports can coexist in singular cases, but that the "justified" reports are self-generated by the police, often with too little of contradictory evidence.
It is impossible for one to acknowledge the systemic problem and accept every police report as accurate.
As I recall, some of the "blindingly obvious" cases we have cussed and discussed were at best interpretive.
I posted my opinion on that further up the thread:
I have a name which spiked in popularity in the mid 1960s; my parents thought that it was slightly unusual when they named me; two years later it was in the top 5 most popular names for baby girls. It went out of fashion just as quickly; most women with my name are now in their early 50s.
I don't know if my name is similarly associated with a narrow age group in America, but I have been thanking my lucky stars that "Karen" has become the go-to name, and not my name.
Both my children have bog-standard names which have been around for ever, specifically to avoid the risk of picking a name which would be characterised as the defining name for a small age range. (They both have more unusual middle names, to give them options).
The current usage is part of the sexism, classism and ageism that's baked into the system. Dismissing it as a mild irritation misses the point.
It closes down a conversation that could move onto how other images of (wo)men aren't particularly helpful either - which gets more into ally territory. (Like here).
It also points out that if you go to Instagram and do #Karen, you will find over 733,000 posts/videos of such women--and men--acting as if they are either under attack or they need to protect their women, or just simply entitled.
Personally? I wouldn't give a shit. My name is very common and I am completely used to seeing it used for unpleasantness and unpleasant people from other people who can also claim the name. I accept that it's 100% valid to object though. I do not say that everyone else should feel the way I do. This reminds me of a conversation I had with my husband about a very unpleasant example of sexism (against women) we saw. He objected as much as I did but it made me fighting mad in a way it didn't make him. I wanted to use a flamethrower (metaphorically) and figure God would know his own. Because he didn't take it personally--and he said this was privilege--he could target better. I think that sometimes using Karen is done by people who are attacked and don't have the distance to target.
Speaking as said husband: Yep. It's a thing.
Birth of a Nation has so much to answer for. Thank you for that article, it has given me a lot to think about.
Related: I heard Australian hip hop artist Briggs reference Karen in one of his songs, and I had no idea what he was on about. I know now it was all this. But also - this. Australia's own Karen. And her name actually is Karen, it seems.
The broader "any woman who disagrees with me" Karen NT is just another meaningless insult for women. I got called "Karen" on Facebook for challenging the absurd claim that "cyclists endanger drivers".
Birth of a Nation may be the reason the KKK started burning crosses, but the idea of a white woman being used to attack a Black man is baked into this country's DNA; this is art following form.
I recommend those who think calling people "karen" whose name is not "Karen" is fine, is to try it with your mother, sister, friends. Report back here after, about how it went. You might want to stay out of arms' reach if the person is capable of temper, or is fed up with with being called things.
Huff Post has this to say: 11 Tips For Becoming a Stereotypical Soccer Mom, though shame on them for using the abbreviation "MILF", which I now understand means "mother I'd like to f***", and is apparently derived from pornography. Additional internet searching provided the understanding that the people not named "Karen" who are called a "karen" are sexually deprived. All of this being disgusting, in poor taste, sexist, rude, and hateful. Like I say, please try "karen' on others and tell us how it went. And PFO about defending the indefensible.
MILF is, IMO. a slight step forwards because it extends sexual attractiveness further in age.
No one is exactly defending using the name Karen as an insult.
But calling it “indefensible” is way the fuck over the top as it implies it being more severe than it is.
I was thinking more of some of the stereotypes it popularised. It's an amazing film and worth the few hours it took to watch, but I felt mentally grubby afterwards. That's even with the fast forwarding.
The great article about Karen 1.0 doesn't address the issues around the usage of Karen 2.0 - which seems to be universally applied to any woman who steps out of some kind of invisible line.
It still measures women's worth in terms of their attractiveness to (almost certainly) men. She's a mother (ewww) and older (bigger ewwww) but still attractive (who'd have thought this was possible) so therefore worth bothering with. Big whoop. It's just the same old sexist crap dressed up as new sexist crap.
But if something isn't 'indefensible' then presumably that's because it can be and is being defended?! But yes, it's not AS indefensible as, say, drowning kittens in a bucket, if that's what you mean!
I still pity anyone - especially any kid called Karen who's now going to have to go through school with the baggage of being labelled as a thick, white, mouthy woman who should shut the hell up. Because kids love the excuse to punch down on unfortunates with stupid names. And 'Karen' is now a stupid name to give anyone, apparently.
Giving a negative behaviour a proper noun title seems needless. Though admittedly 'Jeremy Hunt' was perfect rhyming slang for that particular personality. Maybe some time soon, it'll be enough simply to refer to someone as a 'Jeremy', when we want a polite way to utilise the Worst Expletive in the language? And we all know what we mean when we talk about someone being a 'Boris' - don't we? That's how this works, isn't it?
Worse things happen at sea, but I feel sorry for people named Karen, or at least the ones who are upset or who are fed up. I accept that many people called Karen aren't.
IMO, the real issue here is the effect on people named Karen. And the history of the use of names as insults suggests this is going to be a highly variable and individual issue.
Nothing near the comparisons the OP made.
Yes, of course.
And I still think that this use of "Karen" doesn't really compare to the other names-as-insults that people have brought up on this thread. "Karen" feels like it has a much more personal and direct association that people named "Karen" are likely to be entitled racists.
What comparisons do you think the OP made that weren't about the effect on individual people????
Because the comparison I made was:
Have you really been arguing all this time because you think this comparison didn't work?
All the stuff about lives under threat and so on, that came later. Mostly from you. The comparison I made was about the misuse of names. The End.
But you called using Karen Racist, which is fucking stupid.
You called it sexist, which you did incorrectly before jumping onto the Karen 2.0 bandwagon.
You called it ageist, which you did incorrectly before jumping onto the Karen 2.0 bandwagon.
You steered the issue far from its proper shore from the fucking beginning.
I have vivid memories from my first stint on the Ship on how you would head off in some direction and it might take half a dozen of your posts and 3 or 4 people to get you to climb down off your galloping high horse and apologise for misreading or misinterpreting what someone had said. All that's changed in the meantime is that stopping you is pretty well impossible.
Karen as an insult is directed at a particular demographic. It's white. It's female. Pretending otherwise is fucking idiotic. I don't know what the generic term is for a person who looks like YOU and who throws their weight around as if the whole world has to listen to them, but quit volunteering for the job.
In many arguments, you pretend that you are about accuracy, here you are not. Why?
I didn't use racism in MY description either, you fucking moron. The word does not appear.
It's an insult directed at white and female. I don't give a damn if you argue that "it's not racist" because it's supposedly only used as an insult directed at white women who are behaving badly, it's an insult that is only used at WHITE WOMEN who are behaving badly. Not at the lilbuddhas of this world when they're being self-righteous arseholes (arseholes being something that everyone has).
It's an insult that presupposes that there's something about being a white woman that is more important than the actual damn behaviour. Do. You. Understand? It takes a name that is seen as characteristic of white women and makes that a label for a behaviour. If you want to criticise a white woman who's being an arsehole, focus on the behaviour. Which half of "white woman who's being an arsehole" is important? Who gives a shit about her skin colour or gender?
I comprehend just fine, you twit. Just because I comprehend doesn't have to mean that I agree.
Of course, the pandemic seems to have really reduced the number of Abduls you see. I mean, there's not a lot of point right now. No reason for a bunch of Abduls to go shooting up the restaurants or stadiums in Paris if there's hardly anyone in them. What dumb Abdul would blow up a train with no-one in it? And an Abdul can't drive a truck through a crowd when there isn't any crowd.
But I reckon they'll be back. Once things are back to normal, you'll be seeing Abduls again everywhere.
Calling them out is calling out white privilege. That you cannot see that is white privilege writ large.
Nice one. Apparently you only care about women. And of course, you're spectacularly ignoring that (even according to you) only some white women do this.
But still, let's focus on the fact that they're women and white, not on what they're doing. Let's not focus on the bit that can be changed, just the bit that can't.
That you cannot see that the more important part of white privilege is the PRIVILEGE part is obsession writ large. You care so much about the adjective and not the noun.
I find it actually kind of hilarious that you think privilege is innate to white people more than I do. Well, we're never gonna get rid of it, are we? I mean, you can't stop white people being WHITE.
Karen is a name associated with whiteness. Not with privilege. That you cannot see that the bigger problem with white privilege is its privilege rather than its whiteness tells me you're never going to make the slightest headway in erasing white privilege.
You keep acting as if I can't see the existence of the problem just because I complain about the label that was applied to it. Which is just so frustratingly, mind-numbingly stupid. Over and over you use various terms to rail about white privilege and racism as if I said a single fucking damn thing to deny the reality of how the world actually works. You keep knocking down the straw figure of hate you lovingly created.
You're simply the kind of person who cannot have a discussion about LANGUAGE without making it about the thing the language is supposedly describing.
**This is a real life example. And I've really had to deal with people who haven't got the point.
What is it then ? Fraud ?
Probably not, though that might depend on the exact definition in some places. No money has been taken.
It's a breach of contract.
The fruit of labour has been taken, and the agreed price for it not paid. That's theft just as much as shoplifting or driving away from a petrol station without paying. And yes, I would think someone quibbling about the semantics of it likely didn't give much of a shit about the fact of it happening.
LOL. Look up. There's a point sailing waaaaaaaay over your head.
You think the thing that has been "taken" is "the fruit of labour", eh? Tell me what this fruit looks like...
Labour has been supplied. It wasn't paid for. The employment contract involves 2 parties GIVING things to each other. One gives labour. The other gives money in return.
Well, that's just stupidity on your part. The point about "quibbling about the semantics" is that if you try to prosecute the employer for theft, you'll get nowhere. Understand? If the goal is to get the employer and punish the employer, I'm telling you that you have to find a different way to do it, BECAUSE I give a shit.
There's a real, practical point to what YOU think is "quibbling about the semantics", just because YOU don't fucking understand the significance of the "semantics" and think that "theft" is merely a word rather than a concept with a series of vitally important elements.
I'm not going to bow down to your inferior legal knowledge just because you want to be fucking outraged and pass judgement on me. Go loot a shop or something.
Rather as if you stood outside a burning building, someone asked your to call a fire engine - and you said that was impossible there is only a fire appliance and it doesn’t have a phone number. Technically you’d be right, and most people would assume that the fact you are standing there having the argument means you haven’t called the emergency services.
They go spare, and ten minutes later you mention in passing of course you dialled for help there was a building on fire - and then you wonder why they are still annoyed with you.
Ah, I see. So in other words, in order to start a thread about the misuse of my sister's name as an insult, I'm required to write... how many pages would you like my discussion of the state of the world, the universal declaration of human rights, climate change, children starving in Africa, Black Lives Matter and whether Trump should have been impeached should be?
This is just another form of whataboutism. It's the logical fallacy that you can fill in everything that I don't mention. And it IS a logical fallacy. And you expect me to be responsible for people's assumptions.
No, I expect people to read things like the opening post of a thread and the heading. The thread is called "Karen". Not "White women have it worse than anyone".
I expect people to read "so-called wage theft is not actually theft" and not fucking transform it into "wage theft is fine by me". If people add in a whole pile of assumptions rather than ask questions, that's their fault not mine. Contrast YOUR perfectly okay response of asking what it is, with someone else's response.
Bored now. Bye.
FFS not all theft is defined that way by law. Words can have a technical, legal meaning and a logical meaning that are not the same. Do you think when anarchists say "property is theft" that they think that anyone owning property can be convicted of theft under current laws? Are you really that fucking stupid, or is it just that your head is so far up your own arse that it and your elbow now occupy the same location?
Oh, and if you were really trying to help someone, you'd signpost them to how to deal with their employer, not pick fault with the language used to describe the situation.
It is at least a breach of contract. If the job is covered by an industrial award, it would not only give rise to a civil action for recovery of the underpaid money, there would also be an offence for breaching the award.
Communication doesn’t happen in a vacuum, understanding how contexts work in person and in text is part of communication skill.
If someone on facebook reposts new stories on a regular basis, and those stories are always of black on white violence - every time - however, true each individual case is; you start to wonder, why are they doing that ? The act of creating a pattern of posts is a communication as well as what they actually post (intentional or not).
I find it difficult to believe you haven’t previously noticed that much communication is non-verbal and non textual.
Basically - roadworks on a main road, traffic lights, tailbacks. Drivers are taking a convoluted route through a residential area to bypass the traffic lights, driving too fast. Speed camera data confirms that the Council are coining it in in fines, with cars being clocked at driving up to 50mph in a 30mph zone. There was a near accident when a car couldn't stop in time at a pedestrian crossing. Local news reported "a resident" (name, sex and age not given) complaining about drivers using the area as a temporary rat-run (not safe for my children etc etc).
In response to this a man, named as "Gary" said that complaining about drivers driving along a public road is "peak Karen."
It must grate on any woman whose name actually is Karen, that "Karen" can be used as a casual insult, and it grates on me that it's being used to shut down someone voicing a perfectly reasonable concern.