> Please keep that sort of slur off HN. We don't need it here, and you don't need it to make your substantive points.

I think that may be an overly heated response.

Given that I have seen the term used as a pronoun applied to multiple genders, sex preferences, races, ethnicities, etc, I see the term as speaking to behaviors, rather than being a pejorative unique to a group. Here are good examples of it being applied across multiple ethnicities and genders [1] & [2] . There is even a transgender karen [3] .

Normally it is applied to people acting improperly, hall-monitor type of behaviors where it is not warranted. Someone maliciously reporting food growing in a backyard meets the definition.

Please don't make decisions based off Wikipedia [4] or dictionary.com [5] redefining a word to meet a specific agenda.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gncDv1GNF4

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0msiW0mEVo

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Wj9GqsmAI

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(slang)

[5] https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/karen/

'internet forum aspiring to curious conversation' and 'youtube videos making fun of people's public meltdowns' have different standards and HN's are pretty well documented.

> HN's are pretty well documented.

Au contraire.

The word Karen reaching a tipping point in public awareness associated with the Gamestop incident I already pointed out. Many of us have seen it. We're aware of it, we know about it. And we know it is potent, otherwise it wouldn't be on the chopping block for redefinition. And forever, when I think of the word Karen, I think of that particular incident.

The word in that sense, has a great deal of similarity with a tiny little phrase, of a mere two words.

Mission Accomplished.

Whether tearful, premature, ironic, deceptive, tragic, or an example of great hubris, many of us living will forever associate those two words with George W. Bush on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the incalculable human suffering of an unpopular war. The friends we lost after that, and military adventurism run amok. The missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. So much is wrapped up in those two words. And forever, when I think of the phrase Mission Accomplished, I think of that particular speech.

Please do not tell me that HN is going to redefine a word for me, whether it is Karen, or Mission Accomplished, or some other phrase.

We don't need civilized pejoratives that are completely decent for dinner table talk to be conflated with uncivilized utterances not fit for the written or spoken word.

Dang should not become a speech dictator.

To say 'Au contraire' you have to provide some sort of meaningful counter-argument. You have 'comedy' youtube videos, oddly overwrought bombast ('dictator', 'agenda') and something about a completely different phrase which, unlike 'Karen', is not intended as an insult.

Directing tropey slurs at people is mostly not ok on HN and it's been moderated like that for ages.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

It's not super-complicated.

> Directing tropey slurs at people is mostly not ok on HN and it's been moderated like that for ages.

I've provided numerous examples of how it isn't restricted to a specific group and is instead aimed at behaviors.

It is quite similar to the word milquetoast. A mild pejorative aimed at a behavior.

Please stop reaching and trying to conflate it with racial or ethnic slurs.

The 'examples' obviously don't fit HN at all and beside you, nobody has mentioned racial or ethnic slurs nor made any argument the word should be treated here in some way that's different from the way it's widely interpreted. That seems more reach-y and redefin-y than simply asking people not to be trope-wielding jerks on HN.

I don't know if the comment was edited or not, but I hope you're not claiming "vigilante" is a slur. I looked up the definition of slur just to be sure and you are technically correct, but I'd say you're abusing language far more than the person you're responding to.

It said "Karen" and the commenter edited it.

Edit: I've added the context back by quoting what the GP originally said. I guess one good passive-aggressive stealth edit deserves another.

Sorry, "passive-aggressive stealth edit"? You got what you wanted. They took out the mean word. Don't get pissy about it and start gaslighting people.

Editing a comment after the fact in a way that deprives a reply of its original context and makes it look stupid is, in most cases, a dick move. I think most users understand that. It doesn't make a difference whether the reply was by a moderator or not.

- Accusing a user of using a slur

- Getting snarky because they did the reasonable thing and got rid of the slur after it was pointed out

- Calling said user a dick. If Karen is a misogynistic slur, How is dick not moreso misandristic? I realize you said "dick move", but that's functionally the same. Saying something was a "c?nt move" or a "n????r move" would be tantamount to calling someone a c?nt or n????r.

- Because maybe it made your comment "look stupid"

Jawdropping desecration of the guidelines. You need a vacation.

It would be nice if there was a way to display text in a strikethrough font.

Though, in this specific context, appending something like "Edit: 's/Karens/vigilantes/g'" would be the unambiguous way to document the edit.

In most of the spaces I frequent, an edit to change objectionable wording after being called on it is acceptable. Since you've made it plain that that sort of approach doesn't work here, I'll keep that in mind.

Thanks!

Also, that's the user dang. He pretty much runs HN. I'd assume anything he says in these regards as fact and trust him.

I certainly hope not. People need to push back when we get things wrong. Luckily for me they are not shy about doing so.

This comment is what leadership looks like.

Really? Whats wrong with calling someone a Karen?!

It doesn't take much googling to answer that.

Edit: look you guys, We're not Bowdlers and have never been interested in language policing but I wouldn't have thought this was a borderline case.

It's not a borderline case. People have trouble with the distinction between a judgement about a word overall, and a judgement about what a word will do to an HN thread. Also, people just like to gripe.

Dear dang,

A Karen is no more an inappropriate slur than many other useful words and phrases that are negative, such as goody-two-shoes, busybody, bully, crank, etc.

I don’t see how it helps to ban negative words.

It's a misogynistic slur, used in place of calling a women the b-word or a c-word.

Dang is totally in the right to scold people for saying this.