How is calling someone a thug “dehumanising”? I asked you that before and didn’t get a sensible answer…
Or is “dehumanising” like “racist”, a term you throw around without actually bothering to learn what it means, in the hope that people who aren’t paying attention will think I’m a terrible person and hence should be ignored? I’m obviously not racist, and I’m not dehumanising Davis in any way.
The correct answer is they did not, because Justin Bieber is white. Of everyone here, you should have gotten this one right.
(Underline added)
Did you use the term “non-thuggish” correctly? How do you know? How would I know? Are you attempting to communicate with your audience, or confuse them? Once you accept people changing the meaning of words on a whim, or due to their ignorance of the original meaning of the word, it’s difficult to have a reasonable conversation. Haven’t they opened the door to strawman arguments? John Doe is a thug. Why are you calling John Doe a nigger? I did not call John Doe a nigger. Yes you did. No, I did not. You’re a racist. You’re an asshole. I just can’t talk to you when you’re like this. No shit!
If YOU want to change the meaning of words, you really need to clarify the new and improved meaning that YOU have chosen.
“Not exclusively” creates a communication problem. People can clarify their new meaning of the word, or people can continue to talk past each other. IMHO, of course.
So, by calling a white person a thug, I of everyone here should know that someone else didn’t cal a white person a thug? You are very confused…
Lunacy.
Read that link I posted. You do not understand a thing about how language works. Educate yourself a bit and maybe you’ll find this conversation a bit easier to follow.
And I’m free to think that you’re too stupid to understand that I’m talking about word usage, the meaning of words, and successful communication. You can make up any definition for any word you chose but try not to be too surprised if people don’t understand what you’re talking about. How dare they not read your mind before they respond to what you actually wrote instead of what you meant to say.
I understand what the term “not exclusively” means and why that would lead to confusion during a conversation. Dictionaries, there not just for propping up table legs.
It’s dehumanizing because it’s almost always used as a way to justify/rationalize violence and the mistreatment of those labeled as “thugs”.
For example, it allowed you to have “no complaint” with the death of a non-violent and non-criminal teenager – it seems to me that someone with a normal human amount of compassion would definitely have complaint with a kid’s death, even if he played loud music, and even if there’s a very tiny chance that the killer might have sincerely been in fear for his life.
I would expect that someone who advocates policies that result in hundreds of additional homicides a year without reducing crime rates at all, would have trouble understanding the concept of dehumanizing.
Take a nap or something. You sound delusional. I’m talking about how usage changes over time. You seem to think that words mean what they mean from the moment the word was coined until the end of time. Nobody is deciding on a whim to change the meaning of the word. There are people telling you that, at this moment in our culture, the word is taking on some additional negative connotations due to the selective way in which its used in a lot of cases. You are rejecting that they could possibly see it this way, since word meaning and usage cannot change ever. This is not a rational viewpoint.
they’re
Do you understand that word meaning and usage changes over time? It doesn’t seem that you do. You seem to be rejecting this concept out of hand.
I just learned that in high school when my asshole friends would complain about that “big group of Canadians” over there, they were really complaining about Canadians and not black people, because that’s what it says in the dictionary.
(Underline added)
Thanks for the correction.
Do you understand that the term “over time” means that not everyone currently understands your new definition of a word? Do you understand that not every new definition makes it into the dictionary?
You can clarify your new meaning of a word when you chose to use it incorrectly, or you can take advantage of the confusion when you don’t.
Yes, and that’s why some are trying to raise awareness of what is going on with this term in our current culture and why its usage is falling out of favor. You are saying that they are wrong about their experience with the term and that somehow you get to decide how words make them feel. They are telling you that the connotation has changed, they are not insisting on changing the connotation themselves. Your usage reflects on you. You are free to not accept that culture changes, and word connotations change, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, and that people won’t form their opinions of you based on this stubborn refusal to accept this basic fact.
This sort of puts the power to define words into a small number of hands, percentage-wise.
Where did you stand on the infamous niggardly event, in which David Howard, a top aide to then-D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, was fired for using the word to describe the small budget his office was saddled with?
It seems to me that – especially on a site supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance – the only possible reaction is to work towards erasing any homophonic misunderstandings about the word, rather than valorizing the stupidity of people who did not know what it meant.
It also seems to me that cheering on the small group of people that are seeking to relegate the word “thug,” to the unusable dustbin of linguistic history is a foolish move.
Howard shouldn’t have been fired (I don’t recall the particulars and am assuming you’re accurately describing it). That was a very silly and unfortunate episode.
I think that’s a bit different. Do you really think that (for example) calling Jordan Davis a thug while not calling his killer thug has absolutely nothing to do with stereotypes? How about all the insults and labels of thug for Richard Sherman, after he committed the terrible crime of talking smack exuberantly after a football game? It seems like the word, when used to describe people who aren’t violent (like, say, Davis and Sherman), is disproportionately used to label young black males.
I don’t know if this is racist, but it seems unfortunate to me, and it seems like a not-good thing that should probably be criticized, to me.
It’s not a small group, and I’m not real happy about it. It’s also not exactly a new thing.
John Kerry, Secretary of State:
Fire away with your criticism.
I’m not saying anyone is wrong about their opinion of how the word “thug” is used. I am saying that when you chose to change the meaning of a word, it works best if you clarify to others what your new meaning of the word is. Communication is a two-way street. If you understand what you mean, and I understand what you mean, we can have a conversation. If the other person doesn’t know that you prefer to make up new definitions for words whenever the mood strikes, they might think that you’ve suffered a stroke. just sayin’
Making up a new definition is one thing. Choosing to deride others for not knowing YOUR new meaning of the word is absurd and makes you look like a small-minded, pedantic, asshole.
This new meaning of the word “thug” does not appear to have been accepted by a majority of the English-speaking world and has not been accepted by dictionaries. You suggest that it’s use by a dozen-plus, opinionated assholes, who are not known to speak for the English-speaking world, or for their command of the English language, are now setting the linguistic standard for how words will be used on Wednesday Jan 14, 2015. Will they change the meaning of the word tomorrow, or the next day? Next year?
Howard should not have been fired. It is not a reasonable position to think the word he used was offensive just because it sounds like another offensive word.
The issue here is not those that use thug, but don’t realize that thug can be used as a substitute for the n-word by some people. The issue is that it sometimes is used that way, and sometimes isn’t intentionally used that way, but still carries the connotation, such as with Richard Sherman. So its not about relegating the word to the dustbin of history, its about asking those that use it to be aware of when they are using it, and what it is that causes them to go to that word in certain situations. Nobody is saying it should be a word that is no longer used, just that we should be careful about using it. So Steophan and doorhinge can of course continue using the word thug in any way they like, but I’m just telling them that depending on how they use it going forward, it may reflect badly on them. But that is their choice, of course.