On historical/cultural slurs and references

[Ultonius]

I forgot to add, there's actually such a term for US Americans, "cracker", which comes from "cracking the whip" and is referring to the US' slavering past. As far as I can tell from the last time black-supremacists visited this site, this insult is banned here as racist. Why can't Nazi generalizations be too, then?

According to Wikipedia,

The etymology of the modern term "cracker" is uncertain.[3]

One theory holds that slave foremen in the antebellum South used bullwhips to discipline African slaves, with such use of the whip being described as 'cracking the whip'. The white foremen who cracked these whips thus became known as "crackers".[4][5][6][7]

They are called by the town's-people, "Crackers," from the frequency with which they crack their large whips, as if they derived a peculiar pleasure from the sound"[8]

Yet another whip-derived theory traces this term from Middle English word "cnac" or "craic" which originally meant the sound of a cracking whip, but came to refer to any loud noise. In Elizabethan times this could refer to "entertaining conversation" (one may be said to "crack" a joke) and could be used to describe loud braggarts; this term and the Gaelic spelling craic are still in use in Ireland, Scotland and Northern England. It is documented in Shakespeare's King John (1595): "What cracker is this same that deafs our ears with this abundance of superfluous breath?"[9][10] This usage is illustrated in a letter to the Earl of Dartmouth which reads:

"I should explain to your Lordship what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode."[3]

An alternative theory holds that the term comes from the common diet of poor whites. The 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica supposes that the term derives from the cracked kernels of corn which formed the staple food of this class of people.[11]

I do agree that when used in a pejorative sense against white people, the term is an ethnic slur, and should therefore be banned on SDN.

[Metahive]

When I talked to black supremacists they said the whole whip-cracking thing was the meaning they wanted to convey and I think that's the important thing.

[Simon_Jester]

If we decide that the meaning intended by the person who speaks the slur is what really matters... how do we ever hold anyone accountable for using slurs?

Can't just anyone protest that they meant whatever word they used in a nice/legitimate/respectable way, and that it's somehow your fault that you were offended? I mean, that already happens as it is.

We'd hear a lot of:
"Oh, I think calling a woman [this] is a compliment to her tough-mindedness!"
"Oh, I think calling a member of a minority [that] is just using it affectionately the way they do to each other!"

When the effect on the target group is still, quite obviously, to create a sense of intimidation and lashing-out.

[Metahive]

That's not comparable, the whip cracking thing is one of the highly likely origins of "cracker", so they're not making anything up and it's a slur no matter what.

[Spekio]

I'd like to see some crackdowns on the me-tooing chucklefucks that like to dogpile on "Herp derp America sucks" threads when they think it's safe to do it because all the cool kids are too. Otherwise I think it should all be fair game.

Well, to offer a counterpoint, when you have a nation that think it should meddle in other nations' affairs as much as the U.S. does there is sure to be backlash.

[General Zod]

I'd like to see some crackdowns on the me-tooing chucklefucks that like to dogpile on "Herp derp America sucks" threads when they think it's safe to do it because all the cool kids are too. Otherwise I think it should all be fair game.

Well, to offer a counterpoint, when you have a nation that think it should meddle in other nations' affairs as much as the U.S. does there is sure to be backlash.

Which is fine . . . and not the point. I just want to know if we're going to start ruling whether it's okay or not to make fun of a country because of how popular they are.

[Broomstick]

If you don't own up to them its fair game. If you admit that it was wrong it seems just rubbing it in.

Do you mean collectively own up, or individually own up?

Yeah, I tend to hammer the distinction between groups and individuals. In the case of Japan, there ARE some individuals who admit to Japan's role in atrocities and genuinely would like to set things right to the extent possible. I don't like debates where such a person is attacked as if they held the majority stance from their nation. If you want to have atrocities out in the open and for responsible groups to express remorse and make amends you're not going to have much luck if you attack those do in fact face up to the problem and try to make those amends. So... do you not give a fuck about actually trying to make a positive difference and just want to kick someone in the face verbally, or do you actually give a damn and want to engage in a debate/discussion?

Though now I'm curious; do other countries have terms specific to Americans? Because I've never heard of any, to be quite honest...

There is gringo south of the border. Began around the time of the Mexican American war because American soldiers wore green uniforms.

I always hear "Yanks" get thrown about by Aussies and Brits.

“Yanks” may or may not be insulting – it depends upon context and delivery. Americans may refer to themselves as Yanks.

I forgot to add, there's actually such a term for US Americans, "cracker", which comes from "cracking the whip" and is referring to the US' slavering past.

I always heard it came from white people having skin as white as a cracker (guess that was before whole-grain and multi-grain crackers got popular). I suppose there could have been some of both in the term, or maybe it's just that folk entomology is frequently flawed. In the 20th Century there was also “honky” in reference to Europeans tending to have large noses than other groups.

[Spekio]

Which is fine . . . and not the point. I just want to know if we're going to start ruling whether it's okay or not to make fun of a country because of how popular they are.

I misunderstood it then.

[ArmorPierce]

Same logic is used against affirmative action. What exactly is the line?

Calling a black person an N word and calling a German a Nazi are two completely different things by the way for the reason that the N word is used against an oppressed people with a history of oppression versus Nazi would have been the opposite end of that spectrum.

You can draw a line on the sand on any mention of race or history but that draws a sand in the line and doesn't acknowledge actual soci-economic realities that may have resulted.

Is it so different? In one instance you´re calling somebody a worthless subhuman whom it´s fine to opress. In the other instance you´re calling somebody an inherently immoral asshole.

Now, obviously the meanings are different but does this mean that the recipient of the insult should prefer one over the other? Both meanings, by current context, are bad.

Btw, i think calling Americans slavers is just as bad.

They are related in the sense that it generalizes an insult purely based on an individual s race. To say that all racial insults are equally bad is an extreme oversimplification of a complex issue.

The fact is that one insult has no impact on a person s day to day life, wheareas the other insult is correlated to a negative impact on an individual s day to day life.

A racial insult from an oppressor group in power against an oppressed group is far different than the reverse. The oppressed group is powerless to do a lot about it.

[Broomstick]

I do agree that when used in a pejorative sense against white people, the term is an ethnic slur, and should therefore be banned on SDN.

While "cracker" in the pejorative sense is a racial slur, and I have no problem with banning it on SDN in that context, it does not carry the same weight and some other racial slurs, especially the one starting with N.

[salm]

Same logic is used against affirmative action. What exactly is the line?

Calling a black person an N word and calling a German a Nazi are two completely different things by the way for the reason that the N word is used against an oppressed people with a history of oppression versus Nazi would have been the opposite end of that spectrum.

You can draw a line on the sand on any mention of race or history but that draws a sand in the line and doesn't acknowledge actual soci-economic realities that may have resulted.

Is it so different? In one instance you´re calling somebody a worthless subhuman whom it´s fine to opress. In the other instance you´re calling somebody an inherently immoral asshole.

Now, obviously the meanings are different but does this mean that the recipient of the insult should prefer one over the other? Both meanings, by current context, are bad.

Btw, i think calling Americans slavers is just as bad.

They are related in the sense that it generalizes an insult purely based on an individual s race. To say that all racial insults are equally bad is an extreme oversimplification of a complex issue.

The fact is that one insult has no impact on a person s day to day life, wheareas the other insult is correlated to a negative impact on an individual s day to day life.

A racial insult from an oppressor group in power against an oppressed group is far different than the reverse. The oppressed group is powerless to do a lot about it.

Ah, I see what you meant now and agree.
I didn´t notice your last line about the socio economic realities in you last post.

[Sea Skimmer]

That makes sense, but what happens when it's somewhat unrelated, like the Twitter spike in the usage of the word Nazi during the World Cup?

1) who gives a fuck about twitter, a format specifically designed not to generate useful conversation!
2) we already have rules over persistent troll like behavior. They do not need to be turned into elaborate lists of banned words and phrases. If all someone did was spam threads with references to Nazi's or what have you, they'd be banned anyway. If were going to make this place into feel good censorship central then its just going to implode the userbase, again.

[Gandalf]

That makes sense, but what happens when it's somewhat unrelated, like the Twitter spike in the usage of the word Nazi during the World Cup?

1) who gives a fuck about twitter, a format specifically designed not to generate useful conversation!

Yeah, sorry for using that as an example. My issue was one of similar content here. Evidently it was a rougher day yesterday than I had anticipated.

2) we already have rules over persistent troll like behavior. They do not need to be turned into elaborate lists of banned words and phrases. If all someone did was spam threads with references to Nazi's or what have you, they'd be banned anyway. If were going to make this place into feel good censorship central then its just going to implode the userbase, again.

We've had people banned over single uses of assorted homophobic slurs. What would be your hypothetical line?

[Thanas]

I am not in favor of banning users for calling Germans Nazi (unless they are ones like the NPD).

I will however throw their posts into the HoS and if anybody wants to complain over that they can go to Dalton.

[General Zod]

I am not in favor of banning users for calling Germans Nazi (unless they are ones like the NPD).

I will however throw their posts into the HoS and if anybody wants to complain over that they can go to Dalton.

So it's cool to call everyone else a Nazi if we feel like it? Or is it just the Germans that are off limits?

[Thanas]

Depends on the situation. For example, if a group is engaged in killing another ethnic group, I won't blame people for overreacting. But if it is used to slander Germans then it will be an automatic warning if I see it.

[Channel72]

I do agree that when used in a pejorative sense against white people, the term is an ethnic slur, and should therefore be banned on SDN.

While "cracker" in the pejorative sense is a racial slur, and I have no problem with banning it on SDN in that context, it does not carry the same weight and some other racial slurs, especially the one starting with N.

Yeah, really. I seriously could not care less if someone calls me a "cracker". White people (like myself) generally don't have any negative psychological reaction to that slur, because we haven't been oppressed historically, and we're not victims of effective racism that actually impacts things like our career prospects. Being white is actually pretty fantastic in the US - so a slur like "cracker" is pretty much powerless.

The Mexican term "gringo" might be more effective, because it has this connotation of naivete/stupidity/inability to properly speak Spanish, but personally it still doesn't carry much weight, for me at least. To me it's a light-weight insult - about the equivalent to a New Yorker complaining about tourists or something.

Honestly, algorthmically banning certain keywords is probably silly - the context definitely matters.

[Spekio]

Depends on the situation. For example, if a group is engaged in killing another ethnic group, I won't blame people for overreacting. But if it is used to slander Germans then it will be an automatic warning if I see it.

I object to that. You could call people on their bullshit, and people could give them the good ol' fashioned SDN dogpile.

You are not being egalitarian there if you are not planning on being all inclusive.

[Thanas]

People can still do that in the HoS.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think it depends on the context, really. As Thanas said, sometimes people overreact to some ethnic cleaning news story in N&P by comparing group X to Nazis. In some threads people call Americans imperialists when they are upset over drones or what have you. Sometimes people say stupid or exaggerated things to make a point about how they feel on a subject. I don't really care about that. I think it should only be punished when it becomes obvious trolling, as Coffee had done, or threads become diluted with various "me too" posts and stupid arguments over the issue. Basically, let it go until it begins to actively derail discussions and just treat it like other trolling and obnoxious behavior.

And I don't think there's an inconsistency here with banning people for homophobic or racist slurs. There is no appropriate context in which to use those terms, unless you are specifically talking about the words themselves, which is a different situation. I have no problem with them being treated more harshly, because things like Nazi/imperialist comparisons actually have appropriate contexts.

[Ralin]

I forgot to add, there's actually such a term for US Americans, "cracker", which comes from "cracking the whip" and is referring to the US' slavering past. As far as I can tell from the last time black-supremacists visited this site, this insult is banned here as racist. Why can't Nazi generalizations be too, then?

Uh, the guy in question used a whole laundry list of racial, national and sexuality related insults. Most of which I can't remember off the top my head, but they included "cracker animal" and summing up European culture's entire contribution to world history as "faggotry, pederesty and cannibalism."

You do mean the crazy guy who kept talking about Nubian queens, right?

Edit:

Shit, and I think that most of that came after Edi told him to stop on pain of banning to boot.

[Metahive]

I am not in favor of banning users for calling Germans Nazi (unless they are ones like the NPD).

I will however throw their posts into the HoS and if anybody wants to complain over that they can go to Dalton.

So it's cool to call everyone else a Nazi if we feel like it? Or is it just the Germans that are off limits?

It's the same difference as when people call either GWB or Obama a chimp. There's simply quite a different context to the insult. So while there are Germans who might deserve the label, you still should think harder about using this against a German than when you use it against anyone else. I've been to many boards where using nazi-slurs was the norm against any german poster who had any sort of controversial opinion (like not liking/liking a certain movie, serious BZNS!) as some sort of cheap silencing tactic and thread derail.

Uh, the guy in question used a whole laundry list of racial, national and sexuality related insults. Most of which I can't remember off the top my head, but they included "cracker animal" and summing up European culture's entire contribution to world history as "faggotry, pederesty and cannibalism."

You do mean the crazy guy who kept talking about Nubian queens, right?

Edit:

Shit, and I think that most of that came after Edi told him to stop on pain of banning to boot.

But it was still clear the guy was using "cracker" in places where racist white people would use "nigger" when talking about black people.

[Ralin]

But it was still clear the guy was using "cracker" in places where racist white people would use "nigger" when talking about black people.

Yeah, and the "context" was that the white people didn't give a shit and probably found the whole thing funny before remembering that we were supposed to find it it offensive on general principles. I know I sure did.

[Metahive]

But it was still clear the guy was using "cracker" in places where racist white people would use "nigger" when talking about black people.

Yeah, and the "context" was that the white people didn't give a shit and probably found the whole thing funny before remembering that we were supposed to find it it offensive on general principles. I know I sure did.

So the guy should have been kept on the board because you supposedly can't insult white people with racist tirades? What are you trying to say?

[Ralin]

But it was still clear the guy was using "cracker" in places where racist white people would use "nigger" when talking about black people.

Yeah, and the "context" was that the white people didn't give a shit and probably found the whole thing funny before remembering that we were supposed to find it it offensive on general principles. I know I sure did.

So the guy should have been kept on the board because you supposedly can't insult white people with racist tirades? What are you trying to say?

No assheadhole, I'm saying that he wasn't banned specifically for that and that it's stupid to compare them. As demonstrated by the fact that crazy black supremacist guy got a warning for calling people crackers instead of an auto ban like he would have for nigger.