This is a misguided take and I'm going to explain why. 1/ https://twitter.com/VanigliaRy/status/1278676142346641408

When the term Karen was introduced it gained popular standing because it encapsulated something immaterial about a certain class of white women who wield their relative privilege and status as a weapon over service workers. 2/

Very quickly it became clear that it also applied to a certain class of white women wielding their relative privilege and status over minorities. Frequently, minorities in service roles, as minorities are over represented in such roles, but not exclusively. 3/

This then led to an unpacking of the dynamic at play. Bluntly, a Karen is a white women who weaponises her material and social privilege - and the assumption of her victimhood - to oppress her material and social inferiors for her benefit, and often as an act of revenge. 4/

This was brought into sharp focus when a series of Karens took offense at minorities existing and then weaponised their own crocodile tears to get the police involved, captured on film and then social media for all the world to see. 5/

Now we have two separate instances of Karens with guns threatening minorities for perceived aggression. This is a logical extension of the dynamic of the role. The ur-Karen is one who weaponises her position to wield a threat of violent force with a sense of impunity. 6/

A Karen is a participant in and embodiment of the structuralised violence of material status and relative social privilege, who uses it for the purposes of oppression. We should not be shocked when people draw the through line between the mild and completely unmasked forms. /End

Would appreciate @AliceAvizandum's thoughts on this, based on her previous posting on the topic. 'Sup Alice.