# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/401 "2015-05-03T23:25:26Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > What it proves if you don’t want to know. Nobody said the term was a common derogatory term. The claim is that it is starting to be used as one. Which probably has as much to do with the outcry following the rants of Stokes and Bryant as anything else. I would agree that if any rioters are called “thugs” in the future, it would either be an effort to associate them with skin color or uttered by a totally tone deaf speaker. The issue in the current uproar is whether the word had already achieved that status at the time that the president and mayor used the word and if it was not, prior to last Sunday, a common derogatory term for blacks, then Bryant and Stokes have given it that meaning by way of the Streisand Effect. ---
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/402 "2015-05-03T23:32:28Z")
Wait, so people are saying this is new? I’ve been seeing references to the idea that “thug” has racial connotations for, well I think it’s been _years_ though memory does play tricks. Or am I misunderstanding. ---
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/403 "2015-05-03T23:32:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In the same way, the words “gay” and “queer” have perfectly good meanings unrelated to sexual orientation, and no homosexual person has ever decreed that they can’t be used with their original meanings. But most people voluntarily abandoned using them with their original meanings, to avoid connotations of homosexuality. Efficient? No. Natural? Yes. But that’s not the problem I anticipate. Folks used those words to describe homosexuals, and once that connotation was acquired we were, y’know, _done_. We had plenty of no-such-connotation synonyms left for “gay” and “queer”, and people who _weren’t_ homosexual didn’t say _hey, when you use that word to refer to homosexuals, I suspect you’re thinking of me._ So we didn’t need to let those go and start burning through synonyms. (We never really needed to in the first place; we could have just stuck with “homosexuals”, and no non-homosexuals would’ve thought we were referring to them. But we could spare “gay” and “queer” and _still_ have plenty of synonyms left for the old meanings.) But here, people who aren’t behaving like hoodlums or hooligans say _when you use that word to describe those hoodlums and hooligans, I feel like you mean to conjure up an image of me._ And so that term goes away, and we start using a new one – say, “hoodlum” or “hooligan” – and, well, why the heck wouldn’t the exact same reasoning lead to people again saying _uh, we’re not hoodlums or hooligans, and when you call them that I infer that you actually mean me, so kindly knock it off._ We didn’t need a new word for homosexual once “gay” and “queer” got a connotation. But we _will_ need a new word if “hoodlum” and “hooligan” get a connotation. ---
**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, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/404 "2015-05-03T23:35:20Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Which probably has as much to do with the outcry following the rants of Stokes and Bryant as anything else. I would agree that if any rioters are called “thugs” in the future, it would either be an effort to associate them with skin color or uttered by a totally tone deaf speaker. > The issue in the current uproar is whether the word had already achieved that status at the time that the president and mayor used the word and if it was not, prior to last Sunday, a common derogatory term for blacks, then Bryant and Stokes have given it that meaning by way of the Streisand Effect. post 331 gives examples from before the riots ---
**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, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/405 "2015-05-03T23:38:13Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > We didn’t need a new word for homosexual once “gay” and “queer” got a connotation. But we _will_ need a new word if “hoodlum” and “hooligan” get a connotation. Well, perhaps in 10 years people can even use the term thug again and it wont have the current conotation ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/406 "2015-05-03T23:52:21Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Wait, you don’t think Hannity, O Rielly, Limbaugh, etc, would use racist and derogatory language? This is a classic example of the fallacy that just because somebody holds an opinion contrary to yours, that person must be bad. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/407 "2015-05-04T00:00:34Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > post 331 gives examples from before the riots Did you mean #262? Because #331 simply quotes you and indicates why 262 fails as proof of your assertion. So Hannity and Limbaugh have used it. They have also used “liberal” as an insult. Pointing to the extremes of behavior does nothing to demonstrate general usage. Martin was called a thug? So was Zimmerman. Yep. Examples. Not, however, an indication of a universal trend. Thug showed up 625 times in one day? Yeah, the day that this foofaraw started. Where is the evidence for a general or universal trend prior to the rants of Bryant and Stokes? Getting mad at Obama and Rawlings-Blake for a word that shifted its general meaning after they were chided, (and because they were chided), for using it is rather like people who would be mad if they encountered the word niggardly in a speech or writing prior to January, 1999. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/408 "2015-05-04T00:10:31Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > We really need a clip of Ronald Reagan saying “there you go with that mind reading again”. I don’t have to read minds to understand what is plainly seen on the written page. ---
**Author:** ![mrclose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/94ad74/32.png) [@mrclose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrclose)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/409 "2015-05-04T00:12:00Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > so when some conservative talk show host says the word “thug” when referring to young African American males they are not trying to be racist and derogatory? So when Obama used it … He is not trying to be racist and derogatory?😕 ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/410 "2015-05-04T00:17:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Which surely should make you _all the more_ circumspect about what you choose to say and how you choose to express yourself ? No. See above about how I put self expression above not hurting somebodies feelings. > [@Kobal2](#): > > My default assumption is that you’re probably a decent bloke - but _you_ slightly amended that assumption by opting to use a (possibly) loaded word of your own free will. There’s (obviously) no clear consensus that the word is loaded. > [@Kobal2](#): > > We haven’t agreed on shit - I specifically added “whatever that means” because what is or isn’t considered thuggish behaviour isn’t exactly set in stone, and might not be assessed the same by both parties. You (hypothetical you) might believe “talks at the movies” is thug behaviour for all I know. It’s not really relevant to the point I’m trying to make, though. It is relevant though. Calling somebody a thug because they’re acting like one isn’t racist. And the idea that any cognitively normal, fluent speaker of English doesn’t have a clear of idea of what thug-like behavior is asinine. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Congratulations on being antisocial, I guess ? Hey, watch the offensive language. > [@Kobal2](#): > > You’re missing the point. > I’m saying that, far from making your meaning clear, using such ambiguous words muddles communication. It’s not about “speaking in ways you assume other people approve” or disapprove, it’s about clearly and concisely conveying your thoughts in such a way that your interlocutor will understand them, or rather not misunderstand them. You know exactly what you mean, feel, think, believe - but \*he \*doesn’t. Just earlier in this post you complained about using “loaded language.” In your original post that I responded to, you constructed your hypothetical such that a person should avoid using the word thug so you wouldn’t think they’re racists. Clearly, this is about using language you and others approve of. This ad hoc objection about “clearly and concisely conveying your thoughts” is just moving the goal posts. > [@Kobal2](#): > > As I said, if the observed person is doing something you disapprove of, and you feel that this disapproval is something that “needs to be said”, you have a nigh-infinite vocabulary at your disposal to say so without any racial ambiguity getting in the mix. So why pick the (possible) dog whistle ? And if you do opt to use that one specific word, out of the hundreds of equivalent words you could have used in its place, why on Earth would I _not_ wonder whether you did so for less than honorable reasons ? Because 1) _if_ it’s a dog whistle, it’s only because artificial outrage has been ginned up, and 2) I don’t care how you might interpret what I say. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/411 "2015-05-04T00:17:42Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I don’t have to read minds to understand what is plainly seen on the written page. So you are fine with the worst possible interpretation of what you see? Sounds to me a lot like the vice of lack of charity . Yeah, I said it. That tabasco in the eyes burns a bit ehh? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/412 "2015-05-04T00:33:11Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > So you are fine with the worst possible interpretation of what you see? > > Sounds to me a lot like the vice of lack of charity . > > Yeah, I said it. That tabasco in the eyes burns a bit ehh? You missed. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/413 "2015-05-04T00:38:57Z")
EVERYONE, back off on the personal slams. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![OldOlds](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a3d4f5/32.png) [@OldOlds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldOlds)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/414 "2015-05-04T00:53:47Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > What it proves if you don’t want to know. Nobody said the term was a common derogatory term. The claim is that it is starting to be used as one. Stop insinuating that people are racist. You’ve done it to me, and you’ve done it to John Mace. I have posted nothing racist. I have never seen any posting by John to indicate he is a racist. It’s a shitty thing to do, and completely unwarranted. On top of that, if you’ve got something to say, don’t be a wuss. Just say it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/415 "2015-05-04T01:05:56Z")
OldOlds, read the post immediately preceding your last one, (_i.e._, Post #348). [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/416 "2015-05-04T01:09:44Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nothing I said could be construed to indicate that a person could not be accused of racism because he or she was black. That was your unfounded inference. No, you suggested that the fact of them being black was a strong reason to think they were not being racist. Here’s what you wrote: > [@tomndebb](#): > > As to the “joke,” I suppose that it is more tragic than humorous that some twits are accusing prominent _ **black** _ people of racism when those _ **black** _ leaders are condemning senseless violence that has harmed more _ **black** _ citizens than white citizens. Perhaps I should have employed the word "ridiculous,"noting that such people should be the subject of scornful laughter. (emphasis added) I’m glad that you reject the proposition that a person cannot not be accused of racism because he or she is black. I think you should go a step further and place far less weight on the race of the speaker when assessing whether a speaker is engaged in racist discourse. The rest of your post indicates a complete breakdown in communication. You’re doing precisely what you accuse me of doing, and I can’t tell if it’s just projection or genuine misunderstanding, so I’ll just leave it lie. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/417 "2015-05-04T02:33:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Did you mean #262? Because #331 simply quotes you and indicates why 262 fails as proof of your assertion. > So Hannity and Limbaugh have used it. They have also used “liberal” as an insult. Pointing to the extremes of behavior does nothing to demonstrate general usage. > Martin was called a thug? So was Zimmerman. > Yep. Examples. Not, however, an indication of a universal trend. > Thug showed up 625 times in one day? Yeah, the day that this foofaraw started. > Where is the evidence for a general or universal trend prior to the rants of Bryant and Stokes? > Getting mad at Obama and Rawlings-Blake for a word that shifted its general meaning after they were chided, (and because they were chided), for using it is rather like people who would be mad if they encountered the word niggardly in a speech or writing prior to January, 1999. I never said the term was in common usage. I said it had started to be used as a derogatory term. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/418 "2015-05-04T02:34:28Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > 1- Do you deny that certain people are now choosing to use the word as a coded racist word? I deny it. Further more, I will state that those who are calling the use of the word thug racist are doing so purposely to minimize the actions of the people who used violence for political ends. I believe that any word used to describe the people who broke shit and burned things because they were angry would also be called racist by you and those who think like you. In other words, those screaming about the word thug being racist are doing so for one reason only and that is to demonize anyone who dares to state that burning shit and breaking things is bad. It isn’t about racism, it is about ducking responsibility. I think there is a serious problem with the police. I think that all to often situations escalate and violence is used against minorities when those situations ought not end in violence. I don’t know the answer but I believe there is a problem. I believe that cops are too quick to suspect minorities of illegal behavior. I also believe that some minorities suspect that the cops are out to get them. I believe that the two attitudes combined is a bad thing and leads to unnecessary escalation of what should be routine interactions. However, calling people racist for labeling thuggish behaviour as thuggish doesn’t do a danned thing about the problem other than to add another word to the list of ‘Things that cannot be said’. Of course nothing will change because people are too invested in racial politics. Slee On a side note, the first person to call me racist is welcome to email me and I will send a pic of my grandsons. Both of whom are black and as cute as can be. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/419 "2015-05-04T02:37:54Z")
> [@OldOlds](#): > > Stop insinuating that people are racist. You’ve done it to me, and you’ve done it to John Mace. I have posted nothing racist. I have never seen any posting by John to indicate he is a racist. It’s a shitty thing to do, and completely unwarranted. On top of that, if you’ve got something to say, don’t be a wuss. Just say it. If people are defending racist tactics I am going to assume they are racist. I can’t see inside your head. I can see what you endorse, what you condemn, and what you defend. Is that the wrong assumption to make in great debates? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959/420 "2015-05-04T02:45:39Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I deny it. > > Further more, I will state that those who are calling the use of the word thug racist are doing so purposely to minimize the actions of the people who used violence for political ends. I believe that any word used to describe the people who broke shit and burned things because they were angry would also be called racist by you and those who think like you. > > In other words, those screaming about the word thug being racist are doing so for one reason only and that is to demonize anyone who dares to state that burning shit and breaking things is bad. It isn’t about racism, it is about ducking responsibility. > > I think there is a serious problem with the police. I think that all to often situations escalate and violence is used against minorities when those situations ought not end in violence. I don’t know the answer but I believe there is a problem. > > I believe that cops are too quick to suspect minorities of illegal behavior. I also believe that some minorities suspect that the cops are out to get them. I believe that the two attitudes combined is a bad thing and leads to unnecessary escalation of what should be routine interactions. > > However, calling people racist for labeling thuggish behaviour as thuggish doesn’t do a danned thing about the problem other than to add another word to the list of ‘Things that cannot be said’. > > Of course nothing will change because people are too invested in racial politics. > > Slee > > On a side note, the first person to call me racist is welcome to email me and I will send a pic of my grandsons. Both of whom are black and as cute as can be. Miss communication, on my part. You did a good job of explaining things, BTW. I am referring to the use of the word from _before_ the riots. Refer to post 262 if you wish. While I personally would not call a rioter a thug I can’t condemn someone else who would call a rioter a thug. I also admit that the relationship between black people and police has some problems on both sides of the equation. Furthermore, the use of the term thug and associating it with black people was first made popular by rappers, not by white talk show hosts. There are probably lots of other factors that I could list or agree too. I’m not going to pretend it is entirely a one sided debate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-steadfastly-reject-this-sudden-rush-to-redefine-thug-as-a-racial-slur/718959.md?page=22)