Things That Matter

Does This Karen Really Deserve To Be Accused Of Being A Karen?

Is “I have a Black husband” the new Karen battle cry?

On Tuesday the line began trending on Twitter after video of an unidentified white woman screamed the line at a man she had a traffic dispute with and who claimed she used a racial slur against him.

The video which reached 8.9 million views shows an unidentified white woman being confronted by a man after a traffic incident.

The video was posted to Twitter by Karlos Dillard, an actor, author, and personality who has been featured on the Seattle site Cut, the reality show “Divorce Court,” and whose website says he is “More than just a viral video star.”  

In the video, Dillard confronts the woman and accuses her of cutting him off when they were on the road. Dillard claims that she raised her middle finger at him and later he accused her of using the N-word. He also claimed that she began following him but stopped when she realized that he was recording video of her on his phone. In retaliation, Dillard followed after the woman and confronted her outside of her home.

The video, which was taken in Seattle, follows Dillard as he confronts the woman and attempts to share video of her home and license plate. It also shows the woman screaming, covering her face, and attempting to block Dillard from sharing her license plate, claiming that she is in fear of him labeling her a Karen. Assuming this fear comes in light of the cancel culture around Karens.

“You don’t understand,” the woman yells throughout the video.

The video, which lasts two minutes, shows passersby trying to understand the situations.

Dillard, who has begun to sell shirts using the “I have a Black husband” line, posted the video to his Instagram stories and Twitter page.

In an interview with Insider, Dillard said that he and the woman were driving in a two-lane street that merged into one lane. When he merged ahead of her, she swerved in front of him and slammed on her brakes. Dillard claims that she then yelled at him through her car window. After he got ahead of the woman and turned right, she allegedly followed him.

Dillard said that after the woman continued to follow him, he got out of his car and confronted the woman. “She was angry, upset, screaming racial slurs, obscenities,” Dillard told Insider.

Dillard took out his phone to film the interaction and the woman drove away. “I just went into the general direction that her car drove. And I happened to literally drive right behind her,” Dillard said. When the woman pulled into her driveway, Dillard pulled up and continued filming.

Dillard’s video has sparked conversations about the culture of labeling people Karens and has been accused of being a professional attention seeker.

With Karen content taking over our news feeds and exposing white women for bad or racist behavior, it might be time to question ourselves about what qualifies a Karen. After all, so many of these videos are leading to real-world consequences with many of these “Karens’ being fired from jobs.

In this current case, users on Twitter have attempted to track Dillard’s alleged verbal attacker by using her license plate.

Dillard’s history of recent racist claims and attention-seeking motives are also coming into question.

As Newsweek reported, it’s not Dillard’s first time going viral for a video allegedly displaying racism. Last month, on May 28, Dillard accused an Asian restaurant worker on Twitter of using a racial slur when he went to pick up a Postmates delivery. At the time, Dillard accused the woman of being “racist” for asking to see his license to show that he was the correct Postmates driver. Similar to his current video, the person did not use a racial slur while being filmed.

Users on Twitter are accusing Dillard of being dishonest.

People have also been quick to point out Dillard’s voting record and previous behaviors on Cut. In 2017 Dillard admitted to voting for Donald Trump. Speaking to Insider, Dillard said that racism isn’t a bipartisan issue. “It doesn’t matter if I voted for Santa Claus yesterday,” he claimed. “So I really just think that it’s really fascinating to see that my character is being picked apart.” 

Notice any needed corrections? Please email us at corrections@wearemitu.com

Women Are Speaking Out About What Changed Their Minds About Abortion

Fierce

Women Are Speaking Out About What Changed Their Minds About Abortion

Mark Reinstein / Getty

With so much at stake this election year, it’s important to understand the circumstances behind some of our biggest beliefs. Currently there are little questions as to whether Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is in opposition to a person’s right to abortion. Her Catholic faith, her academic writing, and accounts from friends affirm that she has opposes the medical procedure. During a 2017 confirmation hearing for her current position as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Coney Barret stated that she was bound to follow the Roe decision as an appeals court judge stating “Roe has been affirmed many times and survived many challenges in the court… And it’s more than 40 years old, and it’s clearly binding on all courts of appeals. And so it’s not open to me or up to me, and I would have no interest in, as a court of appeals judge, challenging that precedent.”

There’s likely no chance of changing her mind, but we were curious about how women felt.

A recent post on Reddit posed the question: What changed your mind on abortion?

Check out the answers below!

“Being pregnant (with a very much wanted baby). I’ve always been pro choice, but learning about how much can go wrong in a pregnancy made it very apparent abortion is far from a black and white issue. For example, say the fetus has some defect where it can be carried to term, but will 100% die shortly after birth. There is no reason the mother should be forced to carry out the whole pregnancy. There are so many other nuances like this that are not possible to legislate.” – kittyinparis

“having one myself. i was religious, orthodox christian once upon a time. i hate to be one of those people who didn’t understand something until i experienced it myself but it is what it was. i extremely naive and ignorant because i thought that it was as simple as “don’t get pregnant if you don’t want a kid”. but it’s really not. and you never know what someone’s story is. and even then, regardless of their situation i think if someone doesn’t want to be pregnant it’s immoral to force them to be.” – Reddit user

“Honestly? Biology class. They went over sexual reproduction step by step and I just couldn’t buy the whole “humanity begins at conception” thing anymore. Then I started reading what all those scary buzzwords meant and I got a bit pissed off. Turns out the evil “partial-birth abortions” are usually called D&Es and they’re usually only done to babies with no chance of survival or in the cases of miscarriages. That’s not evil. That’s sad. I felt lied to, in a big way.” – Moritani

“I learned more about the concepts of bodily autonomy and consent and decided that it’s wrong to force people to remain pregnant against their will.” – enerjem

“When I first learned about the concept it seemed like a terrible thing but even after just 20 minutes of research (I did a lot more clearly, but this is just to emphasize how simple this decision was) I became pro-choice at 14ish, and I’ve had that stance ever since. So I only barely changed my mind really, but I think it counts because without looking into it I could’ve gone on believing it to be morally repugnant just because of what it sounds like and because it’s a subject that’s so easy to get carried away on and not look at objectively.” – ypical_Humanoid

“Paying my own bills. It’s a lot harder to feed two mouths than one.” – Reddit user

“Having kids. Pre-kids i was very prolife. Went to rallys and everything. Would have stressed and felt guilty if i got pregnant and dont knownwhat i would have chosen though. 4 kids later and several oops…im very pro choice.” – Strikingachord

“I was pro-life until I was about 13. I figure my brain developed more and I was then better able to see the issue in a more global and expansive way and determined that pro-choice was the most ethical stance.” – searedscallops

“Meeting someone in college who had had one in the past, and who spoke openly about it. She didn’t regret it or torture herself with guilt and shame over it, but she wasn’t a depraved monster, either. She was a wonderful person who did what was best for herself and her situation.” –coffeeblossom

“Having to get one myself.” –aj4ever

“I don’t know that I was ever pro-life in the same way I don’t think I was ever really Christian. I grew up in an Evangelical Protestant denomination, and until about middle school I mostly parroted things I heard. Things like “hate the sin love the sinner” for anything from being gay to probably having an abortion.

Sometime around middle school I started questioning all of it, forming my own opinions on things. I landed on atheist pro-choice feminist and have stayed there since.” – DejaBlonde

Notice any needed corrections? Please email us at corrections@wearemitu.com

Amy Coney Barrett Has Refused To Acknowledge That Systematic Racism Exists

Things That Matter

Amy Coney Barrett Has Refused To Acknowledge That Systematic Racism Exists

Pool / Getty

We know LGBTQ rights, birth control, and race are under threat as Amy Coney Barrett as President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. We know that that conservative judge has been evasive in answering comments about her beliefs which, if appointed, would steer her in making fundamental decisions that could affect American citizens’ lives for decades. Still, though we knew things are bound to go sideways as most things under the Trump administration have, we didn’t realize that an educated woman living in today’s world would refuse to acknowledge a basic societal fact: that “systemic racism” exists in the United States.

In written responses submitted Tuesday night, Barrett repeated her refusal to say whether “systemic racism” exists in our country.

After Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii asked her to explain her view of the existence of “systemic racism” in the United States, Barret refused the opportunity to acknowledge its existence.

“At the hearing, you acknowledged that racism persists in our country, but you refused to answer where there is systemic racism, calling it a ‘policy question.’ You also refused to answer other questions based on your view that they are ‘policy questions,’” Hirono wrote in his questions. “What makes a statement a policy question rather than a question of fact?”

“I believe that racism persists in our country, but as I explained at the hearing, whether there is ‘systemic racism’ is a public policy question of substantial controversy, as evidenced by the disagreement among senators on this very question during the hearing,” Barrett replied. “As a sitting judge and judicial nominee, it would be inappropriate for me to offer an opinion on the matter.”

Barrett’s approach to the question is not totally uncommon. Previous Supreme Court nominees have avoided answering questions concerning precedent. Barrett clung to the approach during her confirmation hearing last week while sitting before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Barrett used this as a standard and repeatedly cited it as a reason for dodging questions.

Systemic racism exists within our country without question.

It persists in our academic settings, workplaces, as well as in our court and judicial system. The fact is that when a certain group dominates a majority of positions of decision-making power, others struggle to exist and get by let alone get ahead. For generations and right now, white people have been the dominating group with decision-making power and people of color have suffered as a result. Acknowledgment is a vital part of making this change. Particularly from our leaders.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Barrett’s confirmation on Thursday afternoon.

Notice any needed corrections? Please email us at corrections@wearemitu.com