>

I never thought a Karen has to be white. But let's for the sake of argument assume this is correct. 
I'm not sure commenting on someone's self-entitled demanding behaviour is really much to do with the societal goal of reducing prejudice, particularly when this behaviour is driven (as per our assumpton) by the privelidge of one's position. Your point kinda takes a reverse-racism stance, where no longer tolerating people's entitlement or intolerance is not to be tolerable. It rams head-long into the paradox of tolerance. Calling out racism where it exists isn't racism, it's anti-racism.
One could take a feminist approach, asking why Karens are always female, but that's not really your point here. Your lady with Juvenile Huntingtons is really nothing to do with entitled women being rude, unless she's acting entitled and rude in which case her condition doesn't give her a free pass on being a jerk.
/u/Shimmy-choo (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I'm not making a racist statement when I use the name Karen to describe something. 
That's a name based on behavior. It isn't based on race. A person makes a choice to be a Karen. They don't make a choice to be born to a race. 
There is zero racist about the term Karen. There are lots of comments on behavior. >

It doesn't bother me.  I'm saying it as a matter of fact.

Be the defender of rude entitled women.

Are you the defender of violent black men when you raise an eyebrow when I talk about some thug attacking a random Asian person?
Or is it different?
Because fuck white people? >

Is there any way that I can tell you that Karen is a racist slur without you telling me that I'm upset?
It's an academic fact.  Dispassionate as 2+2=4 >


If you want to really claim that Karen is a racial slur on par with the n word or spic

When you resort to straw man arguments, you have to know, at least on some level, that you're wrong.
Let me break it down etymologically for you.
Racial: of, relating to, or based on a race 
Slur: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo 
Racial Slur: An insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo of, relating to, or based on a race.
Karen is exclusively about white women.  It is a bad word you call white women.  Karen is a racial slur. >


on par with spic or the n word

I literally just called this a straw man argument.  You're projecting this part.  If we unpack this a little, you acknowledge that there are degrees of severity of a racial slur in that you keep saying spic but you refuse to say "the N word".  When you're comparing the badness of two words and you won't even say one of them, that's the worse word.
Great, so we agree that the severity of racial slurs cover a whole spectrum of severity.

So own that comparrison. Please tell me how spic, the N word and Karen are comparrible words.

Spic is a bad word you call someone that is race specific.
The N word is a bad word you call someone that is race specific.
Karen is a bad word you call someone that is race specific.

and not race.

Karen is a bad word you call someone that is race specific. >

Yeah any race can be a Karen, so its not specifically towards white women. I do think it's unfortunate though for everyone named Karen. They must hate it lmao >

As far as I understand, "Karens" can be any race. >

There is a big difference between discrimination and calling people out for their own bad behavior. Sure, the Karen “meme” typically is a white woman with short hair, but Karen behavior isn’t race or gender specific. If someone referred to all white women as Karen, that could be considered offensive but to call someone acting like an entitled jerk “a Karen” is not. Also, when comparing to the n or f words, Karen was not originally a term used to tear down a group of people for things they could not control (race or sexual identity) but a funny response to a specific type of bad behavior that is directly damaging to society. (And in my experience, typically due to “the Karen” being discriminatory based on profession/race/sexuality etc of the person she is being a disrespectful bitch to)
Sure, society would be a lot better if all name calling was eliminated but that isn’t realistic and white women who are respectful of others and don’t behave like a “Karen” aren’t offended by the phrase. If you are offended by the phrase as a white woman, bad news, you’re probably the problem. >

In my second edit, I made it clear that my concern is not that white women will be offended by use of the phrase. >

I also am not concerned about white women being offended by the word, my point is that it’s not racially based. In general, you cannot call a black person the n word as a white person and it not be offensive. This is because it is a racially motivated slur offensive to anyone of that race. Karen is only offensive to people who feel the right to abuse other people. 
And your first edit claims that Wikipedia also defines Karen based on race. This is the Wikipedia definition of Karen from right now (1/9/23 10:20pm CST)
Karen may refer to:
Karen (name), a given name and surname
Karen (slang), a term and meme for a demanding woman displaying certain behaviors
It’s not race related per your “source”. 
It’s a term very similar to jerk or asshole. Again, yea, the world would be much better without name calling and i don’t think anyone would want to change your view on that but in terms of comparing “Karen” to terms that have actually been used to discriminate against minority and oppressed groups? Gross. 
I get that you prefaced this with saying you were basing your opinion on “Karen” being defined as a white woman but that’s not necessarily an accurate definition so how is anyone supposed to engage in meaningful conversation about it?
That would be like saying, using the word retard is always offensive. Yes, it could be in certain context and when used to insult someone who is developmentally challenged but if you work in air travel, that word means to decrease throttle when landing. >

If you see the Wikipedia article I linked, the first sentence says: 

Karen is a pejorative term for a white woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is normal. >


All reasonable people agree that as a society our goal is to move to a place where we are less prejudiced, 

I disagree with this assumption.
It seems to me that the obsession with being "less prejudiced" inevitably leads to prejudice against the opposite group. 
It doesn't actually reduce the amount of prejudice; and to me, it makes no sense to make a society with "no prejudice". 
For example, is it wrong to be prejudiced against murderers? rapists?
This stance just doesn't seem internally consistent to me. >

You're not prejudiced against murderers. That's not a prejudice, that's a judgement.
Pre-judging would be assuming they're murderers without evidence. >

The behaviour of the Karen is the larger issue. Not that everyone hates her and calls her out on it. >

Allow me to try to change your view in a different direction. Whether or not it is racist is irrelevant (though I do agree with you). Instead, we should just never use people's names as insults. People didn't ask to be named Karen, yet their name still gets dragged through the mud for no good reason. I have heard many stories of people getting bullied (even adults) just because they are named Karen. It's not right >

My friend changed her name because if this. >

The point is, the “karen” is most likely in the wrong to begin with. Nobody’s calling the nice white lady working at walgreens and minding her own business a karen, it’s almost exclusively used to describe near-tangible entitlement and gall. >

i think op is dumb but that being said this is the exact justification people use for other slurs, "i wouldn't call him blank if he was being civilized" >

You made it clear you weren't complaining of "reverse racism" but a lot of what you wrote that appeared to be exactly what you were complaining about...
Let me ask which of these statements you disagree with:
1) There are a fair number of white women who seem completely oblivious to their privilege.
2) Having to routinely encounter white women seemingly oblivious to their privilege is an understandably negative experience for a significant number of minorities.
3) It is understandable then that people would develop a word or term to use that is shorter than having to say "a white women completely oblivious to their privilege" every time.
4) Inevitably, this term is going to quickly gain a negative connotation as it describes people based on undesirable characteristics. >

I essentially agree with all those statements. In number 4, I don't think the term is used to describe "white women who are completely oblivious to their privilege", I think it is used to described "white women who are rude and entitled". Nevertheless, your point stands.
All your points are fair and reasonable.
What I really take issue with, however, is the sheer glee with which the term is used by so many. (See here for a convenient example). 
It is not simply acting as a linguistic shortcut, but as an insult. 
I still don't consider the term to be wise if a less prejudiced society is our goal, but you have changed my mind in terms of how the use of the term is understandable. - Δ >

My understanding is that the Karen term has been around for years in the black community. Entitled vs. oblivious to privilege is very close to the same thing. The idea is that black people aren't free to demand minor details go perfectly for them, raise a big stink, demand the manager, refuse to shut up until they get their way, etc...the white woman feels this will get her what she wants as opposed to being kicked out or arrested. That's why it's being oblivious to privilege. The "Karen" isn't knowingly being racist but is effectively saying "I should get my way because I am white". 
The woman with an unleashed dog in Central Park who called the police on a black birdwatcher is probably the perfect example. That's not just entitled, that's the "Karen" demanding preferential treatment due to her race.
But what has happened is once the term caught wind on the internet, now it's used mostly (from what I can tell, educated guess) by white men. I tend to agree that now it just comes across as meanspirited and sexist. >

Itt.... "It's not about race. Anybody can be a Karen! ...it's nearly always white people though."
Man. It's so annoying when people are openly racist and don't even know recognise it.