Nobody is trying to change the meaning of the word. Why you keep harping on this I have no idea. They are alerting you that some people are now using it in this ugly way. Not that every use of it fits, or that everyone that uses it, is using it in this way. If you want to blame someone for changing the meaning, blame the racists that use it in this way. Don’t blame those that are just trying to raise awareness that its happening. Nobody is saying don’t use the word, just be thoughtful of when and why you choose to use it. Why is being thoughtful of word choice and usage so objectionable to you?
I agree.
Problem is that this justification could be applied to Howard. The issue was not that he used the word niggardly, but that it can be used as a substitute by some people. He didn’t use it intentionally that way, but it still carried the connotation. (See, e.g., Whoopi Goldberg’s comments at the time, in which she claimed that the word’s origins were racial, that the word actually derived from perceptions that blacks were cheap and unwilling to pay for things).
Do you not see the problem here in allowing the ignorant to dictate the meanings of words?
I’m afraid this is how language works though. Societal and cultural changes have caused many many words to change meaning and usage throughout history. There’s no reason to expect this phenomenon to stop now.
Have you commented on your view regarding Richard Sherman being referred to as a thug? Do you think there’s anything wrong with people speaking out about these kinds of issues? Because that’s all we’re really talking about. Nobody is suggesting banning the word, and nobody is in danger of being fired for using it, that I know of anyway. Its just about wanting people to be thoughtful about when and why they choose to apply the term. Is that an unreasonable expectation?
(Bolding and underlined added)
Yes, you, and others, are, in fact, trying to change the meaning of the word. And by my use of the word “meaning” I mean “definition”. Hopefully you will understand one of those two choices.
You’re not fooling anyone other than yourself. If you want to change the definition of a word, you’re going to have to inform others that you no longer wish to use the current, socially-acceptable, dictionary-defined definition.
I have no way of knowing what you MEANT to say. I only know what you DID say. If you want to change the status quo, you’re going to have to include a clarification that the general, English-speaking, public can understand.
For example -
Have a nice day. (And by have a nice day, I mean blow it out of your ass.) That’s pretty simple isn’t it? I know what I meant and you know what I meant.
Have a nice day. 
This might just be your lamest liberal “hypocrisy gotcha” ever. Bravo.
You misunderstand the issue. There are some people who deliberately and knowingly use the word thug as a substitute for the word nigger. It’s like the word ‘Canadian’, which is used similarly. There’s no misunderstanding here–when they say ‘thug’ they mean ‘nigger’.
Meanwhile, other people are using the word in a non-racist sense.
So how do we know which group a person is in when they use the word? Well, we observe them: If they consistently use the word only to refer to black people, whether that person has earned that characterization or not, then they’re in the first group. If you call a black person a thug when that person is not actually a violent criminal, like Fox News did, then you meant ‘nigger’ and we all know it.
If you don’t want to be misunderstood, then use the word appropriately. If there’s an innocent black kid murdered by an actual violent white criminal, and you use the word ‘thug’ to describe one of them, then people are going to think you’re a racist (and they’ll be right) if you’re talking about the kid.
The John Kerry thing is stupid. Don’t be stupid.
Ok you are just not getting this at all. I’m about to give up, but I’ll try to explain this once more. Hopefully it’ll get through this time.
The original meaning and definition are intact and nobody is trying to change that. What is being said is there is a new usage popping up more and more that is disturbing and unfair. Its this new alternate usage that is the problem. You may never have used the term in this way, and you may never use it this way in the future. That does not change the fact that there are some people that are using it this way right now. You can deny that anyone has ever used thug as shorthand for the n-word. You can deny that some people reflexively use it to refer to any black male youth, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. The ones that are using thug in this way are the ones that are trying to change the term. You seem to only want to blame those that are pointing out what is happening though. Why is that? Why aren’t you upset with the racists that are using the term this way and are causing this problem?
Huh? That doesn’t fit what I wrote. Assad is very violent. I was talking about the use of the word to describe non-violent people, who inevitably (it seems to me, anyway) usually end up being young black men.
(post shortened)
That’s great advice. Maybe you should take your own advice. If YOU don’t want to be misunderstood, then use the word appropriately.
Thug = N-word has not been officially accepted by the keepers of the English-speaking world. YOU want to change the meaning of the word, and YOU object to anyone not using YOUR definition. Who died and left you in charge of the English language? And threatening to call someone a racist because they refuse to accept YOUR definition proves that you are, at best, an impotent bully with delusions of grandeur. Good luck with that.
Who are the “keepers of the English-speaking world”?
I see the “problem” as one of communication. YOU want to change the way the term is used. I understand the official meaning of the word “thug”. You assume to know what others are thinking. What an amazing talent you must think you have. :smack:
If I have a question about how someone is using a word or phrase, I have, (I hoping you’re sitting down for this) asked them to clarify their statement. Amazingly simple isn’t it.
Well let’s take another word say, teabagger. If I, a conservative strategist, tell the local Tea Party group that if they want to avoid people snickering at them, they should stop calling themselves this, am I changing the definition of the word? No, the people who changed the definition were a bunch frat boys who started using this term to refer to their immature acts, and it caught on with a subset of the general public. I’m just the bearer of the bad news. Similarly if a bunch of racists start calling blacks thugs as a substitute for N-----, then pointing this out on the message board is not changing the definition. Dictionaries are fundamentally descriptive not proscriptive. Dictionaries change because the language changes, not the other way around.
Really? Seriously? When you discover a new word, or one that’s used differently that how you believe it should be used, where do you look for a clarification? The Bill Maher handbook of cool new words? The Charles Barkley Big Book of Golf and Other Words? A dictionary?
Mostly urban dictionary. So the keepers of the English-speaking world are a bunch of anonymous 13-year-olds, apparently.
Yes, seriously.
Which dictionary? Which edition? Does the same dictionary apply to all English speakers, or is there a different one for each country?
If a new word comes about (like, say robot, or android, or computer), does it exist until it’s entered into the official dictionary? If I use a foreign word, does it have meaning?
I have so many questions. You are a wonderful poster.
I don’t recall the Tea Party being too concerned about what liberals, Democrats, progressives, MSNBC, or the dailykos called them. The Tea Party just kept getting many of their candidates elected to the legislative and executive branches of government. Teabagging? Isn’t that something Democrats do for their fundraisers?
If you want to change the meaning of the word “thug”, that’s your business. If you want me to accept your new meaning of the word “thug”, you’re going to have to come up with a better argument. If you can absolutely guarantee that your definition will, someday, become the standard definition of the word, I’d like you to supply me with the winning lottery numbers for the next drawing.
Which dictionary do you own, or which one(s) do you have access to?
Are these thug robots, thug androids, thug computers?
Did you know what the term “computer” meant before your mom bought you one? Was that term in common use before, let’s say 1950? How popular was the term during the 60’s? Do you remember the 60’s? How popular was the term during the 70’s? When was the term first listed in a dictionary? Did the people who worked with computers during the 50’s have to repeatedly explain to non-computer users what a computer was or did?
Extra points if you know how Tobor the Great got his name?
It really doesn’t matter to reality (which has a liberal bias) what YOU recall.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/04/14/msnbc-place-low-brow-teabag-humor
I can keep posting more links, just let me know.
“Wow, racists are using the word thug so they can call Black people niggers and get away with it? :eek: I’m gonna be extra careful to only use that word in a context that leaves no room for confusion, thanks. :(”
Nah, that would require not being a disingenuous idiot. :smack:
CMC fnord!
Just so we clearly understand each other - keep posting more links.