Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Insult is to those on the receiving in, so no its racist term on par with a hundred other terms boyo.

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
no. cracker is a racist term. I heard it especially when I was jumped once in a mall. Protip, don't use two guys to jump one guy when four of his friends are in the store he's standing in front of...

It is no where close to the N-word, and doesn't have close to the same history or innate threat level ingrained to it.

Maybe they should have simply used BIGOT instead, but his actions were exactly the actions which the terms were coined from.

uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.

(after reading what Dunn did... I think he's toast)

 LordofHats wrote:

Do you understand impaired judgement?

Impaired judgement isn't a justification, evident by how you can be sent to jail for drunk driving that results in death, or for raping a girl while drunk, or starting a bar fight, while drunk. It's called depraved indifference.

You are late to a party that really doesnt exist.

Not once did I say that impaired judgement was a justification.

The man was impaired IMHO, and murdered a young man whose only crime was to act like a dumb young man which an inebriated man took as a threat.

At no time in any of the coverage Ive read, did the boys get out of the vehicle and approach the shooter. The shooter claims that he "heard" what he perceived to be a barrel thump against the door of the car. How so, if the music was loud enough to vibrate the vehicle?

Not once, despite the desperate machinations of some posters, did I offer a defense of the shooter.

As Ive stated before, this does not look like a clean shoot. And as others have stated, the man is (or should be) rightly toast.

No toast was harmed in the making of this thread.

So you know how in so many of the gun threads I've tried making the point that heated situations are so much more dangerous when there's a gun, well... yeah.

I mean, consider this situation, a heated exchange between two sides, in which one is armed and suddenly thinks that the other side might also be armed and about to use it. You end up with a dead kid and someone on trial. Two lives ruined.

Then consider the same heated exchange, in a place where no-one has a gun and also has no reason to think the other side might have a gun. There may still be an escalation to violence, but it is less likely, and it's even less likely that such violence will be deadly.

 Frazzled wrote:
No toast was harmed in the making of this thread.

Yeah right!

That pic is so disturbing, yet awesome.

 whembly wrote:
uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.

Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.

But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.

This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.

Also cracker has very strong undertones in the South that others may not get. You just don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddddddd....

nkelsch wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:


The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. l

WRONG. NOT THE SAME AT ALL.

Cracker is a term for calling out someone abusing his white privilege in an unreasonable way... like a 'slave master cracking his whip' or a racist ass 'honking' his horn at civil rights protestors. It is not anywhere close to a racial slur or a term of threatening violence.

N-word is a threatening action degrading a person to 'less than human' levels and is to intimidate and threaten.

'playing thug music' is not being threatening and they have every right to be belligerent when confronted by a bigot. 'Thug' is the new N-word for bigots, especially since white people have co-oped rap, it is hardly 'thug' music now, it is pretty mainstream.

Their crime was being black in Florida and not cowering before their white masters.

Dunn is a textbook 'cracker' performing the very definition of the term... they used the term exactly right in every way. And guess what? They have every right to call him that as much as they want and in no way should expect to be shot.

So you are saying Cracker isn't a racist term? Your definition of what a cracker is seems to disagree, primarily because of this: "calling out someone abusing his white privilege". While it is not on the same level of the N word, it is most certainly a racist term for white people. Same with the term Honky, also a racist term for white people. The N word, while absolutely racist, is also not always threatening as you say either, there are people who use it as an adjective when pointing someone out etc (racist folks but that's besides the point). My point is that what your saying about these terms is wrong.

Technically, this statement: "Dunn is a textbook 'cracker' performing the very definition of the term..." is extremely racist, don't believe me, replace "cracker" with any other racist, classist, ageist term used for any other group (really doesn't matter) and you will see what I mean.

As a side note edit to expand on what Fraz is saying: I grew up in South Texas, if the word cracker was being thrown around it was never good for the party involved who was being called that, maybe for you it doesn't hold the same meaning, but as a white person, who grew up around a lot of racial tension, it may hold different meaning to me than to you.

I think we can safely say though that Dunn was a jackass of the Eighth level. Sebster is right in this one instance. That fool should never have had access to a gun.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think we can safely say though that Dunn was a jackass of the Eighth level. Sebster is right in this one instance. That fool should never have had access to a gun.

Yep, this guy is, if I may borrow your term, Toast.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.

Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.

But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.

This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.

To be fair context is important even with taboo words like there's ways of using the word [see forum posting rules] where the word isn't being used to target black people like quoting a historical document to show how race relations have changed from the past, giving someone a definition so they understand

the meaning of the word, using it in a joke in order to degrade the harshness of the word, etc.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.

Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.

But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.

This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.

eh... sort of right.

I live in St. Louis, MO... grew up going to Magnet School in the City where *I* was the minority.

Funny thing is that my African American peers at school were brutally honest about race relations such that left an impression in my life. I think that the city-life made them more pragmatic about their outlook in life.

It's this: Using any words with racial overtones is equally bad. Because the moment you start saying one word in context is worse than the other, it's easier to fall into the reverse-racism trap.

IronWarLeg wrote:


Technically, this statement: "Dunn is a textbook 'cracker' performing the very definition of the term..." is extremely racist, don't believe me, replace "cracker" with any other racist, classist, ageist term used for any other group (really doesn't matter) and you will see what I mean.

No... Because the term is not the same. Cracker and Honkey have very clear origins based upon people's 'ACTIONS', usually based around one race abusing or belittling another. Other terms like the N-word have very clear origins based around blindly dehumanizing someone simply because of their race and not because of his actions. At 'WORST' you are being singled out by the term for being associated by race with people who have unfairly harmed minorities... not being lumped together as a race for being genetically inferior or sub-human for hundreds of years... It is being called 'a douche for being white' opposed to 'a subhuman animal for being black'. If you think it is all 'equal' then that is a problem.

Even when you call someone a 'cracker' it is still dehumanizing to minorities because that is what the 'cracker/Honkey' term is referring to. Someone who is white abusing or being abusive to minorities. Do some people use it as a generic term for all white people? Is it anywhere close to dehumanizing and insulting? Never in a million years...

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.

Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.

But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.

This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.

To be fair context is important even with taboo words like there's ways of using the word [see forum posting rules] where the word isn't being used to target black people like quoting a historical document to show how race relations have changed from the past, giving someone a definition so they understand

the meaning of the word, using it in a joke in order to degrade the harshness of the word, etc.

They recently fired a principal here in Port Orchard, Washington for using the term while explaining what the difference of the N word and the word Negro in a history class where the student was offended by the term Negro. Regardless of the context its one of those words that is best left unsaid (IMO)

Honestly I don't feel really anything when called "cracker" (in fact I would probably laugh), "white devil" sounds much harsher to me but still not as bad as (imo) "[see forum posting rules]" which is probably the A-bomb of racial slurs.

Unless of course you're rapping.

IronWarLeg wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.

Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.

But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.

This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.

To be fair context is important even with taboo words like there's ways of using the word [see forum posting rules] where the word isn't being used to target black people like quoting a historical document to show how race relations have changed from the past, giving someone a definition so they understand

the meaning of the word, using it in a joke in order to degrade the harshness of the word, etc.

They recently fired a principal here in Port Orchard, Washington for using the term while explaining what the difference of the N word and the word Negro in a history class where the student was offended by the term Negro. Regardless of the context its one of those words that is best left unsaid (IMO)

I think Louis CK explains it well how pointless "N-word" as it's not an effective way of censoring a word as you still know they're describing the word "[see forum posting rules]". Anyways that's sad to hear about principle by censoring history you're not getting an accurate representation of the time period

plus that could be used as an opportunity to teach students the difference between modern and past interpretations of race.

Warning: Contains salty language.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Not once, despite the desperate machinations of some posters, did I offer a defense of the shooter.

As Ive stated before, this does not look like a clean shoot. And as others have stated, the man is (or should be) rightly toast.

You're right, you didn't offer a defense. What you did do was offer justification after justification for the shooting after opening with blaming the victim. I mean, you want to walk all that back now, that's OK, but lets not try and rewrite history one page later.

 Frazzled wrote:
That pic is so disturbing, yet awesome.

I think the guy holding the knife was drunk!

FYI... At 8PM today, the jury asked to be provided with access to the gas station video, all 20 minutes worth, and from all six camera angles... o.O

They also indicated that they were finished for the evening, and would continue their efforts tomorrow morning.

Judge Healey elected to recess until 10AM tomorrow, so... do we have time for bingo?

 Ouze wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Not once, despite the desperate machinations of some posters, did I offer a defense of the shooter.

As Ive stated before, this does not look like a clean shoot. And as others have stated, the man is (or should be) rightly toast.

You're right, you didn't offer a defense. What you did do was offer justification after justification for the shooting after opening with blaming the victim. I mean, you want to walk all that back now, that's OK, but lets not try and rewrite history one page later.

You are pretty inept at attempting to shoe-horn this. Keep flailing though

I think the last 2 pages are self evident, and that's all I have to say.


Anyway, you know what the weirdest thing about this is? I bet if he had called the cops right away he might have skated, depending on his BAC. I think the waiting until the next day is what hurt him the most, if he is convicted.

 Frazzled wrote:
Also cracker has very strong undertones in the South that others may not get. You just don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddddddd....

That's my point. That the word will have a very different meaning to different people based on how the culture they were raised in, and their personal experiences.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Also cracker has very strong undertones in the South that others may not get. You just don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddddddd....

That's my point. That the word will have a very different meaning to different people based on how the culture they were raised in, and their personal experiences.

We're in agreement. Hold me, I'm so scared....

 Cheesecat wrote:
To be fair context is important even with taboo words like there's ways of using the word [see forum posting rules] where the word isn't being used to target black people like quoting a historical document to show how race relations have changed from the past, giving someone a definition so they understand

the meaning of the word, using it in a joke in order to degrade the harshness of the word, etc.

Yep, context is very important as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
eh... sort of right.

I live in St. Louis, MO... grew up going to Magnet School in the City where *I* was the minority.

Funny thing is that my African American peers at school were brutally honest about race relations such that left an impression in my life. I think that the city-life made them more pragmatic about their outlook in life.

It's this: Using any words with racial overtones is equally bad. Because the moment you start saying one word in context is worse than the other, it's easier to fall into the reverse-racism trap.

It isn't that simple, because words with racial meanings are used all the time in non-racist contexts, and simply refusing to be part can actually end up looking racist.

I'll give you an example, in the country I used to play in a cricket team with a pretty strong aboriginal contingent, and they'd throw around all sorts of terms that I would never have used when I lived in the city. One time after I'd just shared a good laugh with one guy, he grabbed me around the shoulders and said 'this guy is my boong brother'... and I said 'yeah, we're boong brothers'. Now boong is just like the n-word, and there's no way in hell I'd just say it in regular conversation (I actually feel a bit odd typing it...) but in that situation it would have been weird and kind of racist for me to say 'actually I don't like that word and I won't say'.

It's all in the context of the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Honestly I don't feel really anything when called "cracker" (in fact I would probably laugh), "white devil" sounds much harsher to me but still not as bad as (imo) "[see forum posting rules]" which is probably the A-bomb of racial slurs.

White devil makes me think of Commando comics and really terrible movies made in the '40s that were racist but so camp it is hard to get bothered. Do people really get worked up about 'white devil'? Does anyone even say it?

Would this story have been totally different if the kid had called him a 'white devil'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IronWarLeg wrote:
They recently fired a principal here in Port Orchard, Washington for using the term while explaining what the difference of the N word and the word Negro in a history class where the student was offended by the term Negro. Regardless of the context its one of those words that is best left unsaid (IMO)

Hey, just to clarify, I'm not saying any of these words are okay in public forums. Not at all, because the speaker simply can't know the sensitivities of his entire audience. I am saying that context matters, and just claiming some words are okay and other words are never okay is just too simplistic for how life is actually lived.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
We're in agreement. Hold me, I'm so scared....

We're also both dog people. And have daughters. And have third nipples.

 sebster wrote:


Yep, context is very important as well.


[

I think the Riley cooper situation this past summer is a really good example of how that context changes things a great deal. Still think it was a poor decision for him to say on camera, but there certainly wasn't any racist intent.

FWIW, while I agree that racism is racism and bigotry is bigotry, being called a cracker or a honkey doesn't really bother me. I actually think they're both kinda funny. As a full blooded American Irishman, I'm not really offended when I've been called a Mick before either.

But that's just me.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
eh... sort of right.

I live in St. Louis, MO... grew up going to Magnet School in the City where *I* was the minority.

Funny thing is that my African American peers at school were brutally honest about race relations such that left an impression in my life. I think that the city-life made them more pragmatic about their outlook in life.

It's this: Using any words with racial overtones is equally bad. Because the moment you start saying one word in context is worse than the other, it's easier to fall into the reverse-racism trap.

It isn't that simple, because words with racial meanings are used all the time in non-racist contexts, and simply refusing to be part can actually end up looking racist.

I'll give you an example, in the country I used to play in a cricket team with a pretty strong aboriginal contingent, and they'd throw around all sorts of terms that I would never have used when I lived in the city. One time after I'd just shared a good laugh with one guy, he grabbed me around the shoulders and said 'this guy is my boong brother'... and I said 'yeah, we're boong brothers'. Now boong is just like the n-word, and there's no way in hell I'd just say it in regular conversation (I actually feel a bit odd typing it...) but in that situation it would have been weird and kind of racist for me to say 'actually I don't like that word and I won't say'.

It's all in the context of the situation.

Eh...

At the end of the day, all that really matters is how the recipient takes it. All I'm saying is that racism... is racism.

I'm not talking about folks who knows each other and calls each other names in jest.