The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

“The “Karen” in Chief” Options
Posted: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:35:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,242
Neurons: 52,847
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
I hate that they use a person's name in a derogatory way to mean someone, usually a woman, who bullies others by calling the cops for a non existent “crime”. But they do.

So here's a story about a Karen who does that almost daily. The list follows of several of those being “Karened” by Trump - Joe Scarborough and Twitter among them. (Some people on Twitter are using the word “Karen” to mean any nasty piece of work and as a euphemism for another nasty word.)

“The approach that Trump is taking with Scarborough is the same as that of Karens everywhere: Call the cops, even if there’s no actual violation, and make life miserable for the people having the cops called on them. In both cases, the point is to punish the people who dared to challenge him.. But Trump can still succeed, even if these individual moves fail. He’s testing boundaries, trying to figure out what he can and can’t get away with; he’s already learned in other spheres that he can get away with quite a bit. Beyond that, he’s keeping others in line. Any company or individual thinking of imposing even mild accountability measures on Trump—it’s hard to overstate how minimal Twitter’s fact-check was—has to reckon with what response he might offer.

To see how this works, look no further than Facebook, which seems to be in a defensive, and sycophantic, crouch as the executive order looms. CEO Mark Zuckerberg today granted an interview to Fox News—already a sign that he’s trying to reach Trump and his allies—in which he criticized Twitter’s move.

“You know, I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,” Zuckerberg said. “I think, in general, private companies probably shouldn’t be—or especially these platform companies—shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”
Trump could hardly have written the comments better himself, or seen a better testament to the efficacy of his strategy of appealing to law enforcement and regulators to keep his critics in line. Your ordinary Karen might seek to bully bird-watchers; the Karen in chief gets to bully billionaires..”

So what do you think? Two issues, one or both.

Is it kosher for the president of the United States to bully his critics this way?

Should Facebook and Twitter try to police their websites for truth?

Posted: Friday, May 29, 2020 2:28:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,164
Neurons: 656,588
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
In answer to the first question: No, it's not kosher and it speaks of an insecure president that he has to resort to this type of strategy. Moreover, it also shows that he's a hypocrite: He complains loudly when people make (founded and unfounded) claims against him and tweets that they're meddling with the elections. Yet when he does it, it's 'freedom of speech'. Can't have it both ways. Intentional or not, it certainly serves to divide the nation (and public opinion globally about him) even more.

As for your second question: Yes. They've built and evolved a platform that gives an incredible amount of power to specific influential people - not just influencers but now also political leaders. Now, politics is a weird tangled net where it's easy to adopt plausible deniability and assume you're not responsible for the vote you cast or the people you support. In their mind, perhaps the rise in violence against women or POC after a racist and sexist president gets elected and spills his bile on Twitter, doesn't mean Twitter has to be directly responsible - freedom of speech and all that. Then, when he later tweets about the Chinese virus and that is followed by a flare up of discrimination and violence against Asian Americans, plausible deniability becomes more difficult to maintain. And finally, when the president keeps tweeting misinformation, confusing people on how to act during the pandemic and giving out medical suggestions, suddenly Twitter feels more directly responsible for the deaths of everyone who took the president's tweets to heart.

The factcheck mark is a nice move but also a bit of a cop-out as no one who supports the president already is going to read that. Personally, I feel he should have been kicked off twitter a long time ago because he already broke the terms and conditions many times over. People have gotten banned from Twitter for far less compared to his harassment of people and fuelling of racism and hatred. The only silver lining I can think of is that people have had a good close-up look of what the president is like uncensored so nobody can act like they had no idea.

Now, Facebook has an easy time judging Twitter. It's not the president's facebook posts that make it into every news article so the two platforms don't tackle the same issue. We already know Facebook thinks it shouldn't be the arbiter of truth: It literally can't afford to be as it doesn't have enough manpower to filter out the horrid messages on its platform - even if it's obvious terrorism and abuse. But regardless, Twitter isn't assuming it's the arbiter of truth, Twitter is posting a link to people who are the arbiter of truth. That way it can dodge the responsibility of having to actually do something like kick presidents off their platform.
Posted: Friday, May 29, 2020 3:01:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/20/2014
Posts: 757
Neurons: 1,675,699
Location: Grover Beach, California, United States
Okay, maybe it's just me but what is the point of social media? Many of us survived for many years without any of this stuff. Some of us will even be able to live the rest of our lives never once being a part of it. I personally fail to see why anyone bothers with it...Imagine how much better things would be if we could all just go on a social media diet.

Should Twitter ban Trump? Maybe we should all ban social media and learn to really be social again. Just my two cents.
Posted: Friday, May 29, 2020 4:34:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 2,474
Neurons: 157,801
Location: South Dublin, Ireland
I like the name "Karen".

I know about a Karen who is not only a woman but does not bully anybody else.

The Specsavers company some time ago was advertised with the assistance of a cat; grey, fluffy cat. There was also a man, vet. Karen, brunette and not blonde, was leaving the veterinary's room when a man, after checking the winter cap resembling the cat's fur, called to Karen, to prepare for surgery. It ends with the cat struggling to swallow watching the veterinary. Karen left to her safety at home.
Users browsing this topic

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.