The Left’s Clever Use of ‘Karen’ as a Derogatory Name ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

Politics

The Left’s Clever Use of ‘Karen’ as a Derogatory Name

Published

on

Someone decided to start using the name “Karen” as a derogatory term for women who are caught on video acting annoying, such as complaining about a customer to management at a business, and once the public started making that association, the left started lumping in conservative women with the moniker. Now, anything a conservative woman says or does in taking a political position is at risk of being dismissed as Karen behavior. Stand up and publicly speak out against Critical Race Theory being taught to your children? You’re no longer a hero, you’re a Karen. Get in a political debate with a leftist on social media? No longer are you engaging in the purest form of speech, political speech, instead your behavior is frowned on as trolling because you’re a Karen. It’s an easy way to squelch free speech, because a lot of women don’t want to be thought of as annoying or rude. 

 

The left is very clever about hyping up videos of women who were rude in their interactions with a minority in particular, because it fits their stereotype that conservatives are racist. Who doesn’t know about the woman who called the police on a man for writing “Black Lives Matter” in chalk on his own property, or the woman who called the police on a black man in Central Park who was bird watching? This is dishonest, because the vast majority of conservatives aren’t racist; it’s not hard to make a case that the left has more racists on their side.  

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Friends: Real and Imagined

 

Of course, the Karen moniker is hypocritical, because even though the left no longer champions free speech, they champion feminism, which stands for women speaking up. This is very typical of the left; since they have no principles (other than acting like Santa Claus and handing out free things to everyone using other people’s money, if you can call that a principle), their beliefs, which are based on treating people as groups, not as equal individuals, are inevitably going to clash.

 

It’s part of the left incrementally going after everyone who disagrees with them. It started with white males, who were an easy target, since they don’t fit into any of the left’s special interest groups that they try to buy with money (of course this theory conveniently ignores white males who are disadvantaged, such as being handicapped, chronically ill, etc.). White women have become the next easiest target, since the left has successfully placed such a stigma on being white. Never mind that their most hardcore activists, Antifa, are almost all pasty white, and the people calling conservative women Karens are usually white males themselves.      

 

Studies have been done showing that liberal women tend to be more prickly than conservative women, yet the false stereotype is gaining traction. Liberal women are the ones trying to cancel people, marching in Antifa, reporting people for alleged COVID-19 violations and distorting the #MeToo movement into attacking men for things that don’t rise to the level of sexual harassment. CSPI scholar Zack Goldberg looked into the data behind a Pew survey and found that white liberals are far more likely than other ideological or racial subgroups to report being diagnosed with a mental health condition. I’ve believed for years that when people on the left take out their anger in hateful ways in politics; they are manifesting their personal problems in a way that is considered more socially acceptable. Instead of screaming at family members, punching holes in the wall or abusing substances, they target random strangers on the right with abusive behavior. They think they are hiding their personal problems. It’s far overdue to call them out and make the public aware.

 

The left’s incremental attacks are now turning on their own. Not satisfied with just going after white men, conservative minorities, and now white women, they’re going after moderate Democrats who buck the line. Rod Dreher at The American Conservative talks about how the mob mentality online is driving some to commit suicide. He writes, “If you say the wrong thing, and somebody puts it on social media, they can take your job and destroy your life in a single day — and they will — and nobody and nothing can protect you.”

 

Notice the left has been rather quiet lately in condemning Christians for being judgmental? It’s because they’ve become so mercilessly vicious they forgot about it. Christians also believe in forgiveness, treating others well and compassion. The left gloats and brags wearing face masks that say “Be kind” as they destroy the lives and careers of women they’ve convinced people to believe are behaving like Karens. Meanwhile, people on the right are treating the victims with compassion. I wrote an article about a woman who was targeted a few years ago in hopes of saving her job.   

 

Three women named Karen appeared on This Morning, a British talk show, to talk about how irritating it is to have their name used this way. One is going to legally change her name and another has started a petition to have people stop using the name this way. Predictably, they were slammed as behaving like Karens merely for disliking what had happened to their name. 

 

The moniker probably originated in reference to liberal women. The petition says there was a meme on Black Twitter which described white women who tattle on black children’s lemonade stands. The right is known for defending these; the Institute for Justice has been fighting legal battles on behalf of little kids in this area for years.   

 

Instead of letting the left get away with it, laughing along and being glad your name isn’t Karen, conservatives should call them out on this nasty tactic. Just like women stand up for men when they’re under attack by the left, men need to stand up for women here.

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.


Rachel Alexander is a conservative political writer and pundit. She is the editor of Intellectual Conservative and a recovering attorney. She was ranked by Right Wing News as one of the 50 Best Conservative Columnists from 2011-2019.



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



News

In-N-Out Burger Serves Customers, not San Francisco

Published

on

In-N-Out
Photo credit: Andrew Weibert

In-N-Out Burger just served San Francisco an everything burger, animal style. It’s heartening to see an iconic restaurant chain stand up to government overreach—and in an ultra-liberal enclave, to boot.

Here’s how it went down. San Francisco issued an edict to force bars and restaurants to verify customers’ COVID vaccination papers before allowing entry.

In response, In-N-Out Burger dutifully posted the city’s vaccination requirement on its windows. This placed the onus where it belongs—on their customers. This is as far as a private company need go.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Friends: Real and Imagined

However, San Francisco sees things much differently. They closed down the city’s only In-N-Out Burger location, on Fisherman’s Wharf. As a result, the burger chain issued this statement:

“Local regulators informed us that our restaurant Associates must actively intervene by demanding proof of vaccination and photo identification from every Customer…. We refuse to become the vaccination police for any government. We fiercely disagree with any government dictate that forces a private company to discriminate against customers who choose to patronize their business.”

San Francisco’s beef shouldn’t be with In-N-Out Burger—it should be with its unvaccinated citizens. If the city chooses to order an unconstitutional vaccination requirement for bars and restaurants, they should enforce it, not the bars and restaurants. They’re private businesses, not COVID cops.

Burger bouncers

In-N-Out Burger trains their associates to cheerfully ask customers if they’d like to add fries and shakes to their meals, not to question them about controversial vaccination mandates. Additionally, they shouldn’t be required to make their associates act as bouncers to eject unvaccinated customers.

As an aside, America is one of the only nations on Earth that requires vaccination passports. Most if not all other countries require immunity passports, which include the vaccinated and those who are unvaccinated yet have degrees of natural immunity after being infected with the coronavirus.

The San Francisco In-N-Out Burger mess perfectly illustrates what should be happening all over America. Private business is not an arm of local, state or federal government. We’re all dealing with the pandemic—why compound the problem by attempting to force private businesses to enforce governmental mandates?

It makes one wonder how San Francisco leaders failed to see this coming. Can any serious person imagine cheerful, smiling, In-N-Out Burger associates making effective burger bouncers? It’s ridiculous for any city to expect restaurant employees to provide vaccination enforcement.

This smacks of more than mere incompetence. Did the city truly expect bars and restaurants to comply? If so, this seems like autocratic (and dangerous) arrogance.

If San Francisco wants to enforce vaccination inspections, they should do it themselves on the sidewalk in front of bars and restaurants. Closing restaurants that don’t force their employees to act as muscle for the city is poor leadership.

Given In-N-Out Burger’s wild popularity, it’s safe to say that most customers want their locations open. If some side with San Francisco in closing the restaurant and forcing associates to be vaccination police, they can get lesser burgers elsewhere.

Smart business

It’s called freedom. And clearly, it’s in short supply in places like San Francisco. Kudos to In-N-Out Burger for making a stand.

Here’s hoping other private businesses will take heart in In-N-Out Burger’s sound and smart business sense and stand up to one-size-fits-all autocrats. If they do, it’s likely that most of their customers will continue supporting them and they may even gain new ones.

Smart and principled businesses take risks for the right reasons. In-N-Out Burger is right to defy San Francisco. Prediction: By refusing to discriminate when serving its customers, they’ll sell even more burgers, fries and shakes in the City by the Bay and in their other 368 locations across America.

Continue Reading

Business

Pandora Papers, a box of trouble for whom?

Published

on

Pandoras box seems to be a well-known metaphor in today’s culture. It is often used to represent unknowingly opening a box of wop-ass. The Greek origins are a little more complex.  Pandora was the first human woman, a gift from the gods. She was made from earth to be lovely as a goddess. With the gift of speech to tell lies, and the mind and nature of a treacherous dog. She was given a golden crown of animals and sea creatures. Pandora was blessed with grace, desire and caring to weaken her limbs.

Pandora was the first woman to live among mortal men, first bride and great misery. She was destined to live with men in times of plenty and to desert them in hard times.  Her name means both “she who gives all gifts” and “she who was given all gifts”. In the mythology she opened a jar that belonged to her husband that contained every misery that affects man to today, but managed to close it before hope was able to escape the jar.

Which brings us to the latest document leak from the International Consortium of investigative Journalists or ICIJ. This is the latest of leaks following the Panama papers and the Paradise papers. ICIJ claims this is the largest leak of tax haven information ever. The 11.9 million financial records include information on 330 politicians and high level leaders, including 35 country leaders. For two years over 600 journalists from 117 countries helped to follow up leads exposed by the leak.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Friends: Real and Imagined

Top leaders with homes in Malibu, Monti Carlo, and high rise towers in Dubai. Investments in sugar plantations, polluting factories, and even a hospital. Secret companies and Trusts to hide assets from taxes and their people. ICIJ likes to point out that this money could have been used to help build roads, hospitals, and schools. They also imply the money comes from ill-gotten gains. Pointing out that hiding money is also used during drug smuggling, human trafficking, bribery, and international terrorism.

In an effort to seem like actual investigative journalists they do mention that nothing they were fed was illegal.  They failed to mention that the tax regulations in every one of the countries involved are written by the rich themselves. Mostly by those not uncovered by the Pandora Papers. Something the 600 seemed to have over looked during their two year investigation is any tax avoidance from the United States. Funny thing that.

To find out why you need to look at who the International Consortium of investigative Journalists is and who finances them. It turns out the group was founded in 1997, they claim to take no public funds only donations. Their largest donors happen to be Soros, thru the The Open Society Foundation. Now needless to say Soros is not going to admit what each one of these people did to stop his march towards one world government headed by Soros and company, but we can speculate.

Tony Blair, supported the American action in Afghanistan. King Abdullanh met with and supported Israel. Vladimir Putin would rather not have a one world government telling him how to run Russia. Shakira no stranger to wokeness had the gall to disagree with the Conovirus imprisonment and demanded children be let outside into the sun and air. You can bet that each one of the targets of this dump had somehow displeased those supporting the great reset.

Each one of these thought they had found a beautiful tax haven not knowing it was she who gives all gifts and conversely she who is given all gifts. By selectively revealing that it is worthwhile to spend money to hide income from those who did not earn it is telling. Besides highlighting that taxes are too high for the services provided. Telling that not one American is mentioned. Telling that the “journalists” didn’t discover how politicians in government get rich on civil service salaries. Not one mention of the heads of NGO’s (non-governmental agencies) have found that the poor are very very good for them. How about a peek into how many of the 1.5 million tax exempt organizations in America are just a tax dodge.

We will wait with the patience of Job for the International Consortium of investigative Journalists to do some real investigating.

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending

Politicrossing
 
Send this to a friend