Crackers.

[exploited]

I certainly agree that it is a double standard. I am reminded of a debate I had with my sister many years ago. I asked her if a man hit a woman, was she justified in hitting him back? Yes. But if a woman hits a man, is he justified in hitting her back? She said no. I thought that was ridiculous, but then she made a good point: the difference is that the potential for harm is generally much greater when a man hits a woman, and that problems stemming from female-on-male violence is less prevalent and socially damaging than male-on-female violence.

Obviously there are exceptions, but I think the same can be said about this. No matter how many times a black guy calls a white guy a cracker, it won't change the power differential between the two. But every single time a white man calls a black man a ethnic group member, he is endorsing a particular worldview that still affects and harms a lot of people.

I understand both sides of this argument, I just think that the potential harm caused by being called a cracker is infinitely less than being called a ethnic group member or a Christkiller or whatever.

[Indy]

True. Although how about we just dispose of both words and start talking like adults?

[exploited]

[eynon81]

[Indy]

I don't think people have to get all fauxraged about this but I do think that he should be called out for using such a stupid word, especially being in his position.

[eynon81]

[The Comrade]

[Spider]

@exploited
I agree about that difference. I'm just more interested in the overall damage it does to the battle against racism...that the hypocrisy of it damages the legitimacy of the problem. Its like when feminists rage against sexism and patriarchy (and well they should)...but then fire back a mirror image of the same shit in the other direction. Its like, really? You had my attention about the sexism and patriarchy stuff. I was right there with you. But then you started doing the same damn thing you were just screaming about 5 minutes ago...and you think this helps your cause?

Fighting fire with fire doesn't work if the fire is the problem, and I feel like racism (of whatever perceived magnitude) is always going to take something away from the effort to oppose racism when employed by someone who is presumed to be against that very racism, on the basis of all that history. Its like watching some clown swig from a bottle between rants about the evils of alcohol....where's his credibility supposed to come from?

Its all just too extreme. While overblown, the anger about "cracker" isn't something that should be dismissed as ridiculous. Its legit, if obviously not on the same scale.

[eynon81]

[The Comrade]