# I Steadfastly Reject This Sudden Rush to Redefine "Thug" as a Racial Slur **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 1, 2015, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959 "2015-05-01T03:04:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/341 "2015-05-03T21:05:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, I think the issue here is that when people are acting like thugs (ie, violent), I’m going to feel free to call them thugs. If I call people “thugs” who are not acting like thugs (ie, they aren’t being violent), then I’m being naive if I think the term is going to be seen as neutral. But that would apply to “criminal”, “gangster”, “delinquent” and any number of words that can be used to disparage people who don’t, per se, deserve it. > > Is that clearer? You can. And you would be technically correct. It would also be technically correct that the word today, even when applied to Violent African American Criminals, has a racist connotation that it didn’t have 10 years ago. In other words, since the word has a racist connotation, when you use it, you are not only commenting on the criminals but you are also insinuating, by default, that their race has something to do with them committing violent crime, even if it is not your intent to make such a claim. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Is that the debate? Because, as I read the OP, that does not seem to be the issue he is raising. I don’t see anyone here defending the use of “thug” towards people how aren’t actually engaged in thuggery-- that is, violent behavior. What I do see is some people seemingly objecting to the use even when violent behavior is involved. Why don’t you ask Richard Sherman if he thinks the word is neutral. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/342 "2015-05-03T21:07:50Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > What? > > Lets be clear. If Sean Hannity (or someone like him) makes the statement: “Jay Z and his entourage of thugs” are you going to object if I or someone else calls him out for using coded (racist) language? > [@Terr](#): > > I’m not that familiar with Jay Z. Does he actually have an entourage of thugs? > [@Terr](#): > > So - if he does have an entourage of thugs, is it ok to say that he has an entourage of thugs? > [@Terr](#): > > Yet you admitted that you have no idea whether Jay Z actually has an entourage of thugs. So why would you automatically assume that he doesn’t? > > Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Jay Z has an entourage of thugs. Is it ok to say then that he has an entourage of thugs? > [@Terr](#): > > No, you are missing mine. Is it ok to call a thug a thug? Or is it, in your opinion, ok to call a white thug a thug, but if he’s black one has to look for another word? > [@Terr](#): > > “Especially”. So - you don’t have to be a criminal to be a thug. Correct? Good golly! It is all so confusing! ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/343 "2015-05-03T21:08:20Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So if I’m following this correctly, it went something like this; > > 1. Black criminals adopt the word “thug” to describe themselves > 2. White pundits refer to black criminals by their chosen term > 3. Blacks decry the use of that term as racist > > Is that about right? My guess is that officious whites are the ones who object. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/344 "2015-05-03T21:09:20Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > The “pro thug” folks here know damn well when its appropriate. They are not confused about this at all so I don’t know where you are getting this vibe. Its the “anti thug” people that can’t seen to come to terms with the concept of appropriate (that or they keep arguing against arguments the “pro thug” people aren’t making). 1- Do you deny that certain people are now choosing to use the word as a coded racist word? 2- If you can agree to this then why would you want to use a word that had begun to take on such a meaning? Why leave any room for confusion? ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/345 "2015-05-03T21:13:30Z")
> [@planetcory](#): > > The issue is that ‘thug’ is being assigned to young black men for behavior that isn’t criminal. Black men who aren’t sufficiently docile. Black men who assert ourselves in anyway. Or maybe wear our baseball hats at a jaunty angle. Uppity. Maybe even jerks. We get branded with criminality. > > The problem isn’t with calling thugs thugs. It’s with calling my nephew a thug because you don’t approve of how his pants fit. The words change, but the sentiment remains. Today’s thugs are yesterday’s spooks. If somebody wears a PD uniform, it’s safe to say that he’s a police officer, and may be called the same. Your nephew, if he’s wearing a Brooks Brothers suit, will not be called a thug. If he is wearing attire similar to what the real thugs and wussy wannabes wear…sure, it’s a safe bet that he may, or not, be called a thug. Your asserting yourself will not get you called a thug. WGAF if you are sufficiently docile? What do you mean by that, anyway? When were you ‘insufficiently docile’, and called a thug? I suspect that you have a template for activism, and you are quoting it, rather than speaking from experience. Or reality. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/346 "2015-05-03T21:13:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you quote a post that typifies that? I found one. > [@John Mace](#): > > I’m still at a loss as to what the “anti” folks in this thread want us to do. Are we supposed to not use the word “thug” anymore? Are we only supposed to use it in certain circumstances? I wish the word police would lay down a clear law so we can all comply. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/347 "2015-05-03T21:14:09Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Why don’t you ask Richard Sherman if he thinks the word is neutral. Personally, I really don’t care about someone opinion that’s involved in the morass of stupidity that is professional sports and professional sportsdom and their rabid fans/enemy fans. That’s like asking Jerry Springer about youtube and 4chan comments. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/348 "2015-05-03T21:15:51Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Personally, I really don’t care about someone opinion that’s involved in the morass of stupidity that is professional sports and professional sportsdom and their rabid fans/enemy fans. > > That’s like asking Jerry Springer about youtube and 4chan comments. Believe me, your lack of concern is coming across loud and clear ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/349 "2015-05-03T21:23:08Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I found one. Very funny. I’ve been quite clear on when I’m going to use the word and when I’m mot going to us it. As have the rest of the “pro” side, I think. I’m not seeing anyone defend the use of the term when directed at people who are not acting violently. Not a one. If I’m missing that, I’d be glad to admit an error. What I’m seeing in the anti crowd, though, is a lot complaining about… something, but I’m at a loss as to what specifically they are complaining about. ---
**Author:** ![planetcory](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/planetcory/32/1032_2.png) [@planetcory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/planetcory)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/350 "2015-05-03T21:28:37Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > If somebody wears a PD uniform, it’s safe to say that he’s a police officer, and may be called the same. Your nephew, if he’s wearing a Brooks Brothers suit, will not be called a thug. If he is wearing attire similar to what the real thugs and wussy wannabes wear…sure, it’s a safe bet that he may, or not, be called a thug. > > Your asserting yourself will not get you called a thug. WGAF if you are sufficiently docile? What do you mean by that, anyway? When were you ‘insufficiently docile’, and called a thug? I suspect that you have a template for activism, and you are quoting it, rather than speaking from experience. Or reality. I’m the furthest thing from an activist you could possibly hope to find. I’m just black and live in America. And, yeah, a black guy dressed like a black guy is gonna be called a criminal or wannabe. While the guy dressed like a mafia lieutenant in his ‘Brooks Brothers suit’ will not. That’s the point. Probably because you make the distinction between ‘copyright lawyer’ and ‘made man’, but choose to conflate ‘college student’ and ‘crook’ because he grew some dreadlocks over the summer. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/351 "2015-05-03T21:30:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Very funny. I’ve been quite clear on when I’m going to use the word and when I’m mot going to us it. As have the rest of the “pro” side, I think. I’m not seeing anyone defend the use of the term when directed at people who are not acting violently. Not a one. If I’m missing that, I’d be glad to admit an error. > > What I’m seeing in the anti crowd, though, is a lot complaining about… something, but I’m at a loss as to what specifically they are complaining about. The OP is upset that he feels the word “Thug” is being re-defined. But it isn’t being re-defined. AIf anything, people have found a new, racist, way to use it. An ADDITIONAL definition now exists. The original definition still stands, and sorry for the Op, so does the new one. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/352 "2015-05-03T21:32:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Very funny. I’ve been quite clear on when I’m going to use the word and when I’m mot going to us it. As have the rest of the “pro” side, I think. I’m not seeing anyone defend the use of the term when directed at people who are not acting violently. Not a one. If I’m missing that, I’d be glad to admit an error. > > What I’m seeing in the anti crowd, though, is a lot complaining about… something, but I’m at a loss as to what specifically they are complaining about. The problem is that thug has racist connotations. You can not separate the word from it’s baggage. So even if you are accurately describing a violent black criminal, the fact that the term thug has racist connotations, means you are inadvertently attaching a stigma of race combined with action. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/353 "2015-05-03T21:37:58Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > The problem is that thug has racist connotations. . Not exactly. Some of you people claim it has racists connotations. Mostly through circular logic, appeals to emotion, random “facts” here and there, and an unfortunate occasional confluence of historically correct decidedly non racist verbal descriptors and reality. Not everyone here is buying it. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/354 "2015-05-03T21:39:43Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Not exactly. > > Some of you people claim it has racists connotations. Mostly through circular logic, appeals to emotion, random “facts” here and there, and an unfortunate occasional confluence of historically correct decidedly non racist verbal descriptors and reality. > > Not everyone here is buying it. post 262 would indicate otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/355 "2015-05-03T21:39:50Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > The problem is that thug has racist connotations. You can not separate the word from it’s baggage. So even if you are accurately describing a violent black criminal, the fact that the term thug has racist connotations, means you are inadvertently attaching a stigma of race combined with action. So we’ll innocently use some other synonymous term to accurately describe violent criminals, until _that_ word allegedly acquires racist connotations, and then we’ll switch to some _other_ term to convey the exact same meaning until it too acquires a racist connotation and thusly falls by the wayside, at which point we switch again? I get that that’s the idea, but remain genuinely mystified as to who this helps. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/356 "2015-05-03T21:51:06Z")
Anyone who is confused by the state of affairs concerning the word “Thug” can take it up with the racists who decided to start using the word in a new way. I’m going outside to hit myself in the head with a hammer a few times. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/357 "2015-05-03T21:51:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So we’ll innocently use some other synonymous term to accurately describe violent criminals, until _that_ word allegedly acquires racist connotations, and then we’ll switch to some _other_ term to convey the exact same meaning until it too acquires a racist connotation and thusly falls by the wayside, at which point we switch again? > > I get that that’s the idea, but remain genuinely mystified as to who this helps. Isn’t that precisely what we did with words like darkie, jigaboo, and the N word? They were all accepted at one point. I could list a looooooong list of insults that we no longer tolerate but I feel bad enough listing the three above… ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/358 "2015-05-03T21:56:59Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Isn’t that precisely what we did with words like darkie, jigaboo, and the N word? They were all accepted at one point. I could list a looooooong list of insults that we no longer tolerate but I feel bad enough listing the three above… And when in your alternate reality were the words darki, jigaboo, and nigger applied on a regular basis to white people? Much less being slight biased towards white people as one could argue “thug” was/is? Not to mention that NONE of those three were typically used to describe a behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/359 "2015-05-03T21:58:47Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > And when in your alternate reality were the words darki, jigaboo, and nigger applied on a regular to white people? Much less being slight biased towards white people as one could argue “thug” was/is? > > Not to mention that NONE of those three were typically used to describe a behavior. what made you feel compelled to actually type out all the letters to the N word??? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/360 "2015-05-03T21:59:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Very funny. I’ve been quite clear on when I’m going to use the word and when I’m mot going to us it. Here’s what **Bobot** said: > [@bobot](#): > > It’s my frustration with this thread, I guess. Too many people saying: Gosh almighty, how is a poor boy ever to know when using “thug” is appropriate? I ain’t buying it. It is not believable that you interpreted this as a description of people who are _genuinely_ wondering when it’s appropriate. It is obvious (to me, and frankly, I believe to you) that he was describing people who are wondering when _it’s supposed to be_ appropriate according to anti-thuggers. The quotation I gave from you is an example of exactly that. If I am wrong, and you really did misinterpret him in this way, then a different approach possibly needs to be taken with you when it comes to discussions about how words work and who should say what when in order to be clear. > [@](#): > > What I’m seeing in the anti crowd, though, is a lot complaining about… something, but I’m at a loss as to what specifically they are complaining about. Put broadly but basically accurately, the complaint is about any non-black person referring to any black person by the term “thug” for any reason. Some have also complained about certain black people using the term as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959.md?page=19)