That’s what I thought. You object to white people using the word to describe the looters and arsonist in Baltimore, but it’s OK for black people to use the same word when describing the looters and arsonist in Baltimore. :rolleyes:
The word “thug” still means someone who commits violent acts (regardless of their skin color).
No, I object to people like O Reilly or Hannity using the term in a clearly derogatory manner and having you pretend that they are not being racist. For white people who use it and they only mean criminal, then that is clearly a different situation. Now, why is it so important for you to defend the use of the word thug?
Yup, that’s right. The salient point about Hannity isn’t that he’s a smug, sneering race-baiting cunt : it’s that he’s a white guy. :dubious:
Yeah, you object to white people using the word to describe black looters and arsonists but it’s OK for black people to use the word to describe black looters and arsonists. You’ve convinced me.
Meanwhile, I may have mentioned this before, but the definition of the word “thug” is:
thug
noun
› a man who acts violently, esp. a criminal:
Some thugs smashed his windows.
A thug, is a thug, is a thug.
The word applies equally to all races, colors, creeds, heights, BMI, and levels of education, assuming they were, or are, involved in acts of violence. This isn’t rocket surgery. Violent acts earn people the title of thug.
No, actually, it’s just the opposite. The very fact that the words has more than one connotation is what makes it so effective when the term is used by racists. It gives them room to pretend they are not being racist. Again, why is it so important to you to defend the use of the term thug?
Again, the word “thug” is a commonly used word and it’s definition has been established. Most people know what a “thug” is. Except those who chose to ignore, or can’t use, a dictionary.
OTOH, some people are ignorant of the common definition of the word. It seems to me that the ignorant, and the politically-correct, word-nazis, are now attempting to force a new definition on the rest of society. But the only reasons they can give are alleged mind-reading skills, feelings, and white people are racist. It’s just not convincing.
Well one thing is obvious. You are not convinced.
Isn’t this kind of a silly argument? It seems to me that if you think somebody is behaving thuggishly; violently, criminally, etc, and you call them a thug, that’s not you being racist. If you call somebody a thug just because he’s black, then that’s you being racist, because you assume all black people are thugs.
Why is it so important to you that it is?
Agreed.
Because I don’t like racism
I’d wager the same is true of everybody posting in this thread. But that didn’t answer the question. Why are you so invested in saying “thug” is the new N-word? You can dislike racism and still think there’s nothing specifically racist about the word “thug.”
If the person happens to be black, it might not be “you being racist” but it very likely is you saying something racist.
Racism isn’t about intent only, it is also about effects. A person can be completely free of an intent to disparage based on race, yet do things which disparage based on race. This is because words have both speakers and hearers–and actions have both doers and recipients.
See my prior post. This is THE MAJOR misunderstanding I see in these kinds of conversations.
Here’s the fact: When people call this usage racist, they often ARE NOT saying something about the intentions of the speaker. Rather, they are saying something about the effects of the usage, regardless of the intentions of the speaker.
The speaker could prove, with brain scans, that they had no intent to be racist–and that they had no intent which is in fact racist–and yet, still for all that their usage may well have been racist. In such a case, a person may in a sense be “blameless” for their usage, but if the person, on having their attention drawn to it, refuses to change, then they subsequently take on responsibility for the usage and will no longer be “blameless”. But I hesitate to even mention this because fundamentally it’s not really about blame and guilt, but about making the effects of one’s actions known and inviting them to do better in the future.
I doubt that. I doubt that very many black people have any confusion about what Hannity means when he says “thug”. Only white people seem to doubt this.
I guess because when someone like Hannity uses it it is particularly crass in addition to being simultaneously smug as well as cowardly. To see people deny that that is how Hannity uses the term is almost as offensive.
I doubt that. I doubt that very many black people have any confusion about what Hannity means when he says “thug”. Only white people seem to doubt this. For example, it’s only white people who object to the term white privilege.
If the person happens to be black, it might not be “you being racist” but it very likely is you saying something racist.
[/QUOTE]
So if I see a white guy acting a certain way, I can with a clear conscience call him a thug; but if I see a black guy acting the same way, I should call him something else?
Yes, that’s exactly right.
See if you can articulate exactly what the problem is supposed to be with this.
I would say so, generally. (These things don’t admit of hard universal claims.)
Just as you can call a white guy “boy” and there is no problem with this, but if you are white and you call a black man “boy” you have done something wrong to him. (Again, generally. Universal claims can’t be made etc and all that.)
Well, absent this, I’d refer to thugs as thugs; but, given it, I’ll shrug and start referring to black thugs as hoodlums until people start finding that offensive, at which point I’ll maybe start referring to black thugs as hooligans or something until that overstays its welcome, at which point I’ll move on to some other way of saying well, see, they’re just like white thugs, only they’re black.
So the exact same That Right There Is A Thug message gets conveyed whether I’m describing a black thug or a white thug – except slightly more effort is spent constantly making sure a new and different term is used for black thugs?
If so, then I guess the articulable problem is that – no problem is really being solved? One significantly similar term gives way to another and another, always expressing the same sentiment, except more work gets put in but nothing better comes out?
I would appreciate your making this effort.
It’s not the exact same message. One way of putting it conveys the message “he is a very inappropriately violent person.” The other way of putting it conveys the message (oversimplifying here) “he is a very inappropriately violent person and this is tied with his blackness and black people are bad.”
I appreciate that effort. It is to be commended.
See above–the different ways of putting the point don’t communicate the same message, though you thought they did.