Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 427 posts

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#271

Post by AnthonyMouse »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #266
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? Sure. It's in the same way that "rapper" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time, even though when someone says "rapper" the image that comes into your mind is of a black man. Except that the connotation of "Karen" is strictly negative, so the people so described want to (archetypically in this case) take offense to it. But…

> so the people so described want to ... take offense to it. This is very much a straw man. If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. And if I see a term that is derogatory towards women, I have every right to object, even though I'm not a woman. In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if…

> If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black.

Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. There is no implication that women are all Karens, only that Karens are contemptible.

> In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the term refers to. But, just like with race and gender, you can object to that term even if its implied meaning genuinely doesn't match your personality type.

Except that race and gender aren't personality types, whereas that's exactly what "Karen" is, and it's just the personality type that would object to the term.

> to make it a bit more concrete, imagine the term "little black men" had been used instead. Upon objection, you replied "no, no, no, the term term doesn't necessarily refer to actual black men, just people that behave a bit like black men". That is very much what the term "Karen" is like.

The analogy to "little black men" would be something like "white female busybodies" which is completely different because it's putting the focus specifically on that race and gender.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#272

Post by impendia »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #207
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is people want to call it "mixed zoning" but still have Karens on the central planning committee making stupid rules, e.g. they'll have "businesses" next to "residences" but a given plot will be explicitly designated as one or the other. What you really want is the small businesses which start off being operated out of the proprietor's residence. A hair salon in a converted living room, a restaurant servi…

Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? I hadn't heard of it until a few months ago, and now it seems everyone is using it to refer to a certain kind of "middle class white woman". A term like that to describe a certain kind of middle class asian or black man would be very offensive. Are the days where we try to exercise civility and empathy gone? It feels like society h…

> Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time?

It is. There are plenty of decent people named Karen who do not deserve to have their name appropriated as an insult.

Better to say "entitled jerk" or something similar. That way, the only person you're insulting is whomever you're calling a jerk.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#273

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ramblerman wrote: post #269
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? Sure. It's in the same way that "rapper" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time, even though when someone says "rapper" the image that comes into your mind is of a black man. Except that the connotation of "Karen" is strictly negative, so the people so described want to (archetypically in this case) take offense to it. But…

That’s not the same. I think it would be more like calling a random middle eastern terrorist a Mohammed.

I don't know if you're not just getting there by starting there in that case. "Middle eastern terrorist" is already pretty racist.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#274

Post by impendia »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #271
quietbritishjim wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so the people so described want to ... take offense to it. This is very much a straw man. If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. And if I see a term that is derogatory towards women, I have every right to object, even though I'm not a woman. In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if…

> If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. There is no implication that women are all Karens, only that Karens are contemptible. > In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the ter…

> Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens.

I would dispute this point. The term is, at least, derogatory to women who are named Karen -- whether or not they are "Karens".

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#275

Post by AnthonyMouse »

impendia wrote: post #274
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. There is no implication that women are all Karens, only that Karens are contemptible. > In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the ter…

> Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. I would dispute this point. The term is, at least, derogatory to women who are named Karen -- whether or not they are "Karens".

Being a Karen has nothing to do with your actual first name.

What you're really doing there is showing why it isn't sexist even though it's implicitly female. The detail is only there for color, not as a core component of the archetype.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#276

Post by b112 »

freeone3000 wrote: post #261
b112 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadian cities have suburbia, and public transit. Many have buses on main streets, which are typically a 2 or 3 block walk from side streets. Suburbia doesn't mean "have to have a car", it is just many like having cars. This sort of speaks to the prior poster, stating that many here are from big cities. Suburbia isn't low-density. It's only low-density compared to 'downtown'. Try living in actual, real rural areas.…

I grew up in a Texas town of 100,000, and it didn't have a single bus route until I was 14. The closest shop was a small bakery six blocks away, which was a godsend since that was the only shop within five miles. When half the usable space is parking, it's low-density. When you have houses plopped in the middle of a hundred-foot-to-a-side rectangle, it's low-density. I acknowledge that it is, indeed, a gradient. But…

I think what you're describing is a lack of public transit, not the impossibility of it. And I'm not 100% sure why 1/2 the space would be parking, this seems like a fairly large exaggeration. More likely lots of the space, was lawn? Space between houses?

I've lived in lots of cities where minimum lot size was an acre, which is 200x200ft. Public transit all around, grocery stores all in walking distance (few blocks at most), with loads of corner stores, etc.

I think that as I mentioned in another comment, zoning laws are important. Too much? Too little? It becomes broken.

But for example, large-scale developers typically can't build here, without dedicating some space to park, to retail, without making an actual community out of the place.

And people in most rural areas I've lived, typically aren't bad off for it.

This may be a cultural thing, or a historical thing such as, how cities were build, and therefore, how they are now.

edit:

An added thought here.... when I visited the US, I noticed that a lot of grocery stores were often larger. I've seen some where it's literally a few minutes to walk end to end, when inside.

Maybe this is the difference?

Most of the grocery stores here are smaller. Maybe we just have smaller grocery stores, but more of them?

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#279

Post by quietbritishjim »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #271
quietbritishjim wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so the people so described want to ... take offense to it. This is very much a straw man. If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. And if I see a term that is derogatory towards women, I have every right to object, even though I'm not a woman. In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if…

> If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. There is no implication that women are all Karens, only that Karens are contemptible. > In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the ter…

You're right "little black men" isn't quite analogous, I couldn't think of a first name that as obviously belongs to a specific race as "Karen" is obviously female. A sibling comment gave a great example of "Mohammed", but instead of their example imagine that Mohammed was being used exactly like Karen, just for someone unnecessarily obstructive. And then someone uses it claiming, oh no, just because I used that name doesn't mean that it's meant to refer to Muslim or Arab people necessarily. Oh really? It was just a total coincidence? Come on, clearly not. Yes, it wouldn't claim that all people in that group have that personality type, or vice versa, but it would heavily imply that there's a strong link.

You could argue that Karen was chosen over Steve or Jeff purely by coincidence because obviously 50% of people are female so why shouldn't it be a female name? Actually a technical author I really like, who doesn't like the singular "they", solves the problem by just using the pronoun "she" for every unspecified person ("if the reader doesn't believe this theorem she can check it herself..."), which I think is fantastic... why not use she over he? But the fact this is so surprising is exactly because it is so unusual. It is, sadly, the default, to use male pronouns and names for things, so when a female name comes up it usually has a connotation (although I just gave an exception). Whether you mean it or not, using "Karen" for someone with that type of personality type heavily suggests that women are more likely to be like that.

That is all already true without an additional fact: historically, it is sadly a stereotype that women's opinions are more petty and unimportant than men's. The use of the word "Karen" for someone with unimportant, ill-informed opinions is directly playing into an existing stereotype. And it is totally avoidable.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#280

Post by badgerigar »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #207
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is people want to call it "mixed zoning" but still have Karens on the central planning committee making stupid rules, e.g. they'll have "businesses" next to "residences" but a given plot will be explicitly designated as one or the other. What you really want is the small businesses which start off being operated out of the proprietor's residence. A hair salon in a converted living room, a restaurant servi…

Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? I hadn't heard of it until a few months ago, and now it seems everyone is using it to refer to a certain kind of "middle class white woman". A term like that to describe a certain kind of middle class asian or black man would be very offensive. Are the days where we try to exercise civility and empathy gone? It feels like society h…

It may be racist and sexist, but it is also true. Pretty much all rapists are men, but we don't let fear of sexism stop us from pointing this out. Likewise, Karen behaviour is found pretty much exclusively in (a small subset of) white (and Asian?) women. Nearly everybody who has worked retail can recognise the type and pretending it doesn't exist is not virtuous.
Post reply on HN