badgenome said:
Cracker does have decidedly negative connotations, even if they're not as strong. Your earlier example, that it's offensive if Michael Richards says nigger because he's white but not when Chris Rock says cracker because he's black, is the very definition of a double standard because it violates the basic premise that no one should be treated differently because of his race. That is similar to how critical race theory holds that there can't be simple and universal application of the law because past injustices have to be made up for with... new injustices, really, only in the opposite direction, when in reality the best way to do away with discrimination is to stop discriminating altogether. Now, the specifics of the actual situations are what make them different: Rock says cracker in the process of telling a joke, whereas when Richards said nigger he did so in anger. Being unfunny is already a cardinal sin for a comedian, so it was that much worse when he flew off the handle and made it racial. That's the context that matters. |
I couldn't disagree more. Even if Chris Rock just called someone a cracker in anger.... nobody would care. Not because of double standards, but because there just isn't a sufficent history there to bug people. Being called a cracker isn't essentially being equated to property.
You can't get rid of something like sexism or racistm without getting rid of sexist and racist actions and words. Which means your going to get angry and specific things with racist and sexist commments. Therefore clearly you are going to get more upset at things which have more context to them, and completely blow off stuff that doesn't make sense or has little context.
