tbp posted:

Democracy Now

Miltank posted:

Im assuming that those who think redneck, white trash ect aren't slurs and don't carry social weight probably aren't coming from a rural community. Its not the same, (read: as bad) as friend of the family, but they are just another way to communicate and solidify antagonism based on class and cultural identity.

Miltank posted:

Im assuming that those who think redneck, white trash ect aren't slurs and don't carry social weight probably aren't coming from a rural community. Its not the same, (read: as bad) as friend of the family, but they are just another way to communicate and solidify antagonism based on class and cultural identity.

Samurai Quack posted:

Well they are slurs, just not about race. You can't be racist against whites, just as you can't be classist against the rich. 'Cracker' isn't a slur racist because there isn't the same loaded implications that exist with 'friend of the family'. (Might come from a classist thing? I didn't follow all of the etymology chat) But certainly someone who is white can be discriminated against, it just won't be on the basis of skin colour.

Coohoolin posted:

Could someone with photoshop skills take this and change the slogan to NEOLIBERAL and the upside elephant to the Conservative and Unionist Party symbol? Would be awesome, cheers.

Samurai Quack posted:

You can't be racist against whites, just as you can't be classist against the rich.

Samurai Quack posted:

But certainly someone who is white can be discriminated against, it just won't be on the basis of skin colour.

Gio posted:

i have a radical suggestion: even if cracker or redneck don't have the same potency as other slurs, some are offended by them and be decent and not say them out of human decency instead of being a dick about it.

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

Well they are slurs, just not about race. You can't be racist against whites, just as you can't be classist against the rich. 'Cracker' isn't a slur racist because there isn't the same loaded implications that exist with 'friend of the family'. (Might come from a classist thing? I didn't follow all of the etymology chat) But certainly someone who is white can be discriminated against, it just won't be on the basis of skin colour.

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

I live in the country and most of the "rednecks" I know are rich assholes who moved to the country(but in little gated communities away from the people who have been here a long time) because they want to be "rednecks" and "country" and everyone else hates them, including the poorer members of the community and the farmers. I'm in the rural north though, maybe it's different in the south/Appalachia/etc.

Bro Dad posted:

Loving all the goons who think "redneck" is offensive because it might have been over a hundred years ago.

It's just a way rural people (usually from the south) refer to themselves and its not any way comparable to a slur.

Though I'm glad such enlightened folk are ready to defend against any perceived insult on my people's behalf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyT-jmVswbw

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

Yes, the properly insulting term you want is "hick"

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

Yes, the properly insulting term you want is "hick"

ryonguy posted:

Nah it's



As in, the goddamn ignorant motherfuckers I am forced to spend my life around because being a raging alcoholic through my 20's destroyed any chance of ever leaving this shithole of a town, complete with them voting for dumbfuck ideologies which continue to destroy my chances of having a living wage or healthcare. You haven't lived until you've heard a shithead co-worker tell you why the minimum wage shouldn't be raised while you and him are working for barely a dollar an hour above the current one, or have somebody blame Obama for their short work hours because their company cut them instead of paying for health coverage. I have heard both in the last month.

Political Whores posted:

Don't be dicks, persecuted groups! Surely there is someone out there who irrationally hates the dominant majority, therefore the violence you suffer and the fear you feel daily really is equivalent.

HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:

quote:

The President has proved [his physical strength] on one occasion, at least, within a year, when his strong arm and cool head served so well their purpose as to be a revelation to everybody cognizant of the circumstances. The occasion referred to was one evening when a young man crazed with drink broke into the private part of the White House and threatened the life of the President. On account of the family of the young fellow, but especially because personal appeal of the distressed mother, little was said about it, and the affair was passed over as of no serious moment. But the facts proved that it was no light disturbance breaking the usual evening peace of the White House that night. The doorkeepers on duty in front were taken unawares by the attack from the South Portico. Their first warning was the crashing in of the Red Room windows, and the wild ravings of the young madman, shrieking with oaths his determination to kill the President. In the darkness it was not possible to know if the attack proceeded from one person or several. The excitement over the New Orleans troubles [of October, 1890, the Italian mafia allegedly killed an Irish police chief, which prompted citizens to lynch 11 suspects in March, 1891] was then high, and as the startled doorkeepers said: ‘We naturally thought of the Italian Mafia at once.’ Two doorkeepers grappled with the young man, but large, strong men as they are, were hardly a match for the superhuman strength of the crazed and foaming would-be-assassin, who, at the outset of the desperate struggle, succeeded in inflicting a painful and stunning blow on the head of one of his captors. In the next moment, the President, who had heard the crashing glass, came down stairs quietly with his cane in his hand, and with one bound passed through the window and stood over the struggling, raving young fellow, holding his arms down as firmly as if they had been fastened by a vice.

It was all like a sudden flash of light on the darkness around them. Not a word was spoken until the President, as quiet and cool as if he had just shaken hands with a visitor, turned and said: ‘Have you any more of them here?’ The men did not know. They had their hands too full with one to look for any more. When the President had made his search alone, into the dark corners of the portico, and had assured himself that there were no concealed accomplices to follow up the attack, he said in the same cool, quiet way:

'And now, what else can I do for you?'

'If you can cut that window-cord, Mr. President, I think it will do to tie him,' was the reply.

The President cut the cord, and bending over his young assailant, with a few passes had him securely tied, hand and foot. Then he went upstairs to assure his frightened family that nothing serious had occurred. The man whose face had suffered in the encounter, afterward said:

'The President was the coolest, quietest man I ever saw, and plucky, too. The thing was so sudden, and in the darkness nobody could tell how many there might be skulking in those corners. But he never thought of his own danger at all. He'd be a match for more than one, though, for his strength is something astonishing, and his is as quick as lightning. When it was all over, he looked after my broken head, and you ought to have seen him then — just as kind and tender as if I'd been his own son. He wasn't so cool then, when he was thinking of me. He was as warm and sympathetic as any man could be. Mrs. Harrison came down and fixed up the bruises herself — and they were both distressed and anxious to relieve the pain. It's the President's quiet way, without any words, that a fellow can't forget. When a man is brave, and tender, too, there isn't much more to be said. But I can tell you, since that night I would like to follow such a leader. I'd do anything in the world for the President. Every man of us in the White House feels the same way. We know him, and he's a brave, big-hearted man, tender as a child. All the stuff about his reserve and coldness is just his quiet way on the outside.'

Nckdictator posted:

Speaking of which I really need to resume my posts on Presidential grave sites.

Hubis posted:

The "you can't be racist against white people" construction is a convenient fiction that is essentially true since, while a white person can certainly experience prejudice on an individual, personal level, the degree to which they might hypothetically experience it, the circumstances under which it occurs and the amount of societal power possessed by those who might execute said prejudice are orders of magnitude from the "actual" racism experienced by marginalized minorities so as to effectively be non-existent. For all intents and purposes, white people don't experience "Racism" by any useful definition of the term.

That is, of course, entirely separate from the issue of using racial slurs. The amount of weight the slur would carry relative to other groups is immaterial and I don't really understand why people keep bringing that up. I don't understand how someone not calling people "cracker" on the internet harms in any way social progress or the empowerment of disenfranchised minorities. It's an a priori argument that "hey, maybe using a term for a group of people based on their race/gender/class identity purely because I don't like them isn't super cool".


-- Said no one, ever

Pornographic Memory posted:

That 70s Shirt posted:

Of course you can be. I'm curious where this whole "racism, classism, whatever-ism is different than prejudice" came from. If you are prejudiced against someone based on their race, you are racist. If you are prejudiced against someone based on class you are classist. Racism against whites and classism against the wealthy don't carry the same societal impact as against racial minorities or poor people, but that's still what it is. Re-defining the word(s) so that it isn't is self-deception and trying to convince yourself you aren't something that you hate.

Jack of Hearts posted:

When you find yourself arguing the finer points of why it's OK for you to be unpleasant to other human beings in your preferred manner, maybe just reconsider. On some level, the much-maligned idea of political correctness is simply an attempt at a kind of generalized good manners. People who are seriously arguing that manners should only work one way are undermining the whole enterprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlNyN8qNvgc

Huggybear posted:

This whole "racism, classism, whatever-ism is different than prejudice" comes from non-white people who experience and thus define racism not with a dictionary, but as a social phenomenon and incredibly demeaning, derogatory lifelong struggle - individually and collectively - that is systemic, endemic, pervasive, invidious and incredibly deeply rooted in both history and social construct (in particular media).