I don’t think they’re trying, and I don’t think it’s the word that’s doing the job.
Wait, you don’t think Hannity, O Rielly, Limbaugh, etc, would use racist and derogatory language?
So, I assume that I can call my idiot brother a thug for actually behaving in a thuglike manner (and for also being a paranoid redneck idiot conspiracy theorist)?
Can I also use the word to refer to an actual criminal, regardless of any color or background?
And on the flip side, I should refrain from using the term to refer to young men of any race or color who are dressed or listening to music that is associated with a subculture that’s not in step with standard American cultures? Such as baggy jeans, or a mohawk and leathers?
I’m not being snarky here (for once). We should have rules!
Yeah, I’ve almost stuck my foot in my mouth on that, too. As in, “Your boy is getting so big!” I might be hypersensitive (comes with being a liberal white southerner), but it didn’t feel right to say that to a black friend, even though we’ve joked a bit about race in the past.
Which surely should make you all the more circumspect about what you choose to say and how you choose to express yourself ?
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.
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.
Congratulations on being antisocial, I guess ?
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.
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 ?
So, if I am understanding this argument correctly
When some people hear the word ‘thug’ their mind instantly leaps to black, however those of us whose minds don’t make that leap are the racist ones.
Got it!
Hoodlums has the word hood in it. I predict a very short half life for that particular usage.
Rap music has had a negative impact upon African American culture but it has also had benefits as well. The point I really want to make is it is no more appropriate to call a young person who listens to rap a thug than it would be to call a young person who listens to AC/DC a satanist.
Just to add another data point; I think this must be a American-English thing, as the word thug has no implication of race to me, a Brit, at all. It implies “male”, that’s about it.
No, because it’s context, not intelligence, that defines what a word “really” means–and in an urban public school that is 80% minority, “thug” is a tough poor black kid. It’s what the word means here. It’s what my kids would hear.
Referring to someone as a “Yankee” here in TX it means something different than calling someone a “Yankee” in the UK. Which is the “real” definition? Who is being “ignorant”?
It’s a British word, albeit a corruption of an Indian one.
If you lot over the pond want to borrow our language free of charge we expect you to retain our definitions and usage. Or we’ll have to to charging you.
“No misrepresentation without taxation”
Anyway, I’m going outside to smoke a fag.
My post wasn’t cryptic at all. You have a naive view of racism, that you express again in the rest of this post. You suggest that because a person is black, it means they aren’t likely to be doing something racist or harbor racial biases. Four hundred years of white supremacist history and its consequences for our politics, economics, and culture poison how everyone thinks about race. Black people are subject to those factors in forming biases too, which is why implicit bias tests show anti-black bias among black people. Black politicians benefit from dynamics created for racial ends and use racial rhetoric for political advantage like white politicians do, for example.
And there’s no need to cast aspersions on my motivations for correcting you. It is possible to address just the contents of posts you disagree with.
(Accidentally posted this before I was done, but I guess this will do.)
It should make you more circumspect about not making unfounded assumptions.
Unless you are making those assumptions for reasons other than a desire to understand. In which case, knock yourself out - the chip is on your shoulder, not mine.
Regards,
Shodan
If you read it on paper with no other indicators for or against racist connotations it would probably be presumptuous to assume assume thug was code for racist. If it was stated verbally with condescension or bad attitude, it’s probably safe to assume it was racist. If it was stated verbally with condescension or bad attitude by someone who makes their living by shocking and offending people, then it would be unreasonable NOT to assume it had racial connotations.
Wondering why exactly you made a specific lexical choice is not “making assumptions”. It’s the exact opposite of making an assumption.
Once more with feeling. The issue is not necessarily about what the speaker is thinking or what character the speaker has. The issue is about the effects of the use of the word. In order for this usage to be call-outable as racist, it is not necessary to assume the person saying “thug” thinks in a racist fashion. It is only necessary to understand what the effects of the use of the word are.
The discussion in some cases can be about the thoughts of the speaker, but do not have to be, and often aren’t. You should not assume it is without further indicators.
And that sounds just like the liberal version of the conservatives “just asking questions” gambit.
Your not wondering for wonderings sake. Your racist radar is pinging.
Agreed. And to think that someone with a nationally recognized radio show, talk show (TV), Blog, etc, is not aware of the possible/probable meanings to various words is doubtful. These people make their living interacting with the public. For an average citizen I would say that they could mistakenly use the term.
It is, but it’s not locked on yet :). It’s searching for further confirmation, one way or the other.
wow
you know it depends a lot upon:
1- Who said it (their past record of public statements)
2- How they say it, attitude, body language, vocal emphasis, etc
I teach in a predominantly black and poor district. My kids seldom use the word thug at all. The few times I’ve heard them use it, it was as part of the phrase “thug life” and they were using that phrase jokingly. So, my poor, urban, black kids don’t give the word as much emotional weight as yours do. I don’t think we can draw too many conclusions based on the kids when the kids don’t have a uniform opinion themselves.