I Steadfastly Reject This Sudden Rush to Redefine "Thug" as a Racial Slur

[Terr]

@Robert163

no actually you just need to quit ducking the question

Kinda like you keep ducking mine?

[marshmallow]

Thug is a satisfying hate word, it has a good mouth feel. You can grimace and spit it out with a lot of derision. Hooligan? Yeah, good luck having fun with that one. Make sure not to drop your monocle in your tea and crumpets.

It’s not like this is new. Nigger was just a term for black people for a long time. Negros. Coloreds. It’s another euphemism treadmill. They fell out of fashion because some people got uncomfortable than other people seemed to enjoy using them a bit too much. And now we sometimes call black people from Europe “African-Americans.” Thanks, everyone, bang up job.

Personally, I’d like to broaden the lexicon. I want to see Fox accuse Democrats of inflaming the kaffir community. I want one of my relatives to start complaining how the neighborhood went to pot after all those god damned quashies showed up.

[Robert163]

@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?

wow

1- I presume he does have an entourage but since I don’t know that he does I am not going to say he does.

2- Both Sean Hannity and Bill O Riley (sp?) frequently make comments about rappers that are factually and culturally incorrect. The statement I made up is the type of thing I would assume they might say.

3- Lets not assume Jay Z has an entourage of thugs unless we can actually establish that he does. If, however, Jay Z hired a bunch of gang bangers to be his personal personal security, then if you wanted to call them thugs then, I guess, go ahead.

4- No offense but are you deliberately missing the point?

[scabpicker]

@Robert163

I’m not sure what you mean to imply. Are you implying this could all lead to some exaggerated climate where politically correct thinking leads to the censure and oppression of unpopular/unacceptable thoughts and statements?

What I’m implying is that this sort of thought leads to a climate that currently seems to be developing where politically correct thinking leads to an absurd torturing of language. A trend, which if left to flourish, would probably just lead to a silly rotation of forbidden words that non-racists have to avoid, while the racists aren’t hindered at all.

[Terr]

@Robert163

4- No offense but are you deliberately missing the point?

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?

[Robert163]

@scabpicker

What I’m implying is that this sort of thought leads to a climate that currently seems to be developing where politically correct thinking leads to an absurd torturing of language. A trend, which if left to flourish, would probably just lead to a silly rotation of forbidden words that non-racists have to avoid, while the racists aren’t hindered at all.

I would have to say that there is a lot of validity to your concerns.

@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?

1- Any word that is accurate is technically acceptable
2- If a black person is a criminal, then technically you could call them a thug
3- But since the word has loaded racist connotations I would suggest avoiding it
4- Why is the retention of the word thug as acceptable language so important to you

[MandaJo]

@Scumpup

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.

It’s not that the kids use it a lot. But if someone said “Does anyone know the name of that Freshman? The thuggy looking one?”, everyone would assume that they were trying to figure out a black kid’s name. No one would be like “You mean Miguel?”

@scabpicker

Well, perhaps that’s what you should actually be complaining about. I think that people inappropriately using the word to describe non-violent criminals, or people who aren’t criminals at all should be taken to task for doing it. They’re using the word wrong, are are just as stupid as the people who are looking to restrict using the word “thug” accurately.

What? If everyone in a conversation has a clear vision of what “thug” means in that context, even though none of them have ever used the word with each other–they all came across and adopted that usage independently of each other–how is it possibly “incorrect”?

@John_Mace

Again, that would strongly imply ignorance on their part of what the word means in the wider world. I would expect “freakishly brilliant” students to know that. If they never encountered it in any other context, then I’d be doing them a service by introducing them to a new context that they should have already experienced. It’s not an uncommon word used to simply mean “violent, criminal type regardless of race”. It could be what many folks like to call a “teachable moment”.

If I heard someone in the UK refer to a Yankee, I wouldn’t, unlike your “freakishly brilliant student” assume it meant a Northerner in the US. First of all, they would probably say Yank, not Yankee, but that’s another point. I know the different contexts of the word, and would ask for clarification if needed, or just let it go if it wasn’t a critical part of the conversation.

It’s the same thing where I live (in CA) when people talk about “back east”. They may mean Chicago, which to me is the midwest. But I guess I’m “freakishly brilliant” enough to know the different contexts and to not assume they mean what my default meaning of the phrase is.

But unlike “Yankee” or “Back east”, you know “thug” does, for many people, carry as it’s primary meaning, a racial connotation, an idea that young black men have an inherent tendency towards mindless violence. In the context of discussing riots in Baltimore, it’s not at all obvious that you don’t intend that connotation. You seem to feel that “intelligent” people default to your interpretation and that “intelligent” people should give you the benefit of the doubt, even in a clearly ambiguous situation, and that people would only default to the other connotation if they were ignorant.

So yeah, my freakishly brilliant students would not give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. They’d assume you were familiar with the full range of connotations of your word choice.

[billfish678]

@John_Mace

Definitely needs more cowbell. A little dog whistle wouldn’t hurt, either.

I’m thinking of something like a race weasel. Kinda like the spice weasel but for words.

BAM!, take it up a notch.

[Terr]

@Robert163

1- Any word that is accurate is technically acceptable
2- If a black person is a criminal, then technically you could call them a thug

You do understand that one may not be a criminal but still be a thug, right?

3- But since the word has loaded racist connotations I would suggest avoiding it
4- Why is the retention of the word thug as acceptable language so important to you

It only has racist connotations in your mind. Not mine. Why should I conform to your word usage?

[Terr]

“50 biggest thugs in hockey history”

I just skimmed but I didn’t find even one black one. And I am pretty sure very few of them if any were “criminals”.

[Gatopescado]

This thread is discromulent.

[Robert163]

@Terr

You do understand that one may not be a criminal but still be a thug, right?
It only has racist connotations in your mind. Not mine. Why should I conform to your word usage?

Criminal: a person who has committed a crime.
Thug: a violent person, especially a criminal.

1- You may not be a racist but your steadfast adherence to using a word that now has racial overtones makes me seriously doubt your claim that you are not racist.

2- You should not change to make me happy. You should change because the term has racial overtones which offend black people.

3- I found out a few years ago that some people from Central/South America didn’t like being called Hispanic, they preferred Latino, because Hispanic had a connotation that is connected to Spain, which, they disliked. Want to know how I reacted. I, unlike you, did not make a big deal out of it. I didn’t disagree or defend myself. Upon hearing that the term bothered people I simply quit using it.

[billfish678]

@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?

Apparently we need another word that is equal, yet separate from the first. You know to be fair and all and to acknowledge the reality of race relations as they currently stand and what informed folks on both sides of the divide prefer. Its just better that way.

[andros]

@billfish678

I suppose if I mentioned a famous Mormon named Jon Smithe you’d be clueless as well?

I think it’s foolish to deride someone for ignorance and cluelessness when you do not even know how to spell the character’s name.

[Robert163]

@billfish678

Apparently we need another word that is equal, yet separate from the first. You know to be fair and all and to acknowledge the reality of race relations as they currently stand and what informed folks on both sides of the divide prefer. Its just better that way.

n/m

are you being sarcastic?

[John_Mace]

@MandaJo

But unlike “Yankee” or “Back east”, you know “thug” does, for many people, carry as it’s primary meaning, a racial connotation, an idea that young black men have an inherent tendency towards mindless violence. In the context of discussing riots in Baltimore, it’s not at all obvious that you don’t intend that connotation. You seem to feel that “intelligent” people default to your interpretation and that “intelligent” people should give you the benefit of the doubt, even in a clearly ambiguous situation, and that people would only default to the other connotation if they were ignorant.

So yeah, my freakishly brilliant students would not give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. They’d assume you were familiar with the full range of connotations of your word choice.

You seem to be tying yourself into knots on this one. First, your “freakishly brilliant” students think the word only refers to young black men. Now they are aware of the full range of the meaning, but instantly assume that only one of those meanings could apply because… well, I can’t quite figure out what your argument is on that one.

We will not tolerate rioting in this city. Such thuggish behavior is unacceptable. If someone is “freakishly brilliant”, he should be able to make a connection between “rioting” and the meaning of “thug” that connotes criminal behavior. If someone is unable to do that, I would be hard pressed to call them “brilliant”, much less “freakishly brilliant”, although I suppose some meanings of the word “freakish” could be accurate.

[Robert163]

@John_Mace

We will not tolerate rioting in this city. Such thuggish behavior is unacceptable.

We will not tolerate rioting in this city. Such thuggish behavior is unacceptable.
We will not tolerate rioting in this city. Such violent behavior is unacceptable.
Is it really that big a deal to use the second sentence? Using that sentence, you are still accurately describing the situation. Is the second sentence any less accurate? No, it is not any less accurate. And it has the added benefit of avoiding looking like you are trying to sneak the N word in the back door.

[OldOlds]

@tomndebb

Of course, it was cryptic. None of this further “explanation” is contained in your earlier post. Beyond that, of course, you have attributed to me views that I have not expressed, so consideration of your motives appears to be appropriate.
meh

You are pretending that one single word, that does not yet have universal racial meaning, indicates that black leaders are buying into racist language. As I noted, had either the president or the mayor employed a term such as “home boy” that is clearly racial in its application, you might have a point. Recent uses of the word thug to identify the actions of white guys: references to Eric Williams, a white man who murdered attorneys in Texas; the gang of university idiots singing racist chants on a bus on Youtube were called thugs.
As the result of this particular foofaraw, the word might NOW become a synonym for black youth, but prior to this event, I have seen no evidence presented, here, that it was used solely or even primarily with that meaning. The proposed racial meanings, to this point, have suggested that it is a favorable term in the black community. If that is so, you need to explain why the mayor and president were using it in a disparaging way. Are you suggesting that they were winking at the black youth, playing to the white audience with condemnation while playing to black youth with a message of “we’ve got your back”?

Give it up, Tomndebb. I’ve asked for evidence of previous, widespread use/meaning of thug as a racist term at least three times, and haven’t yet received it. I suspect its because it can’t be found.

We’ve now devolved into arguing over whether it can ever be OK to refer to a black person as a thug, and we have people declaring the euphemism treadmill is a good thing. Oh, and we all have a responsibility to stay on top of the current list of auto-racist words.

[Terr]

@Robert163

Criminal: a person who has committed a crime.
Thug: a violent person, especially a criminal.

“Especially”. So - you don’t have to be a criminal to be a thug. Correct?

[John_Mace]

@Robert163

We will not tolerate rioting in this city. Such thuggish behavior is unacceptable.
We will not tolerate rioting in this city. Such violent behavior is unacceptable.
Is it really that big a deal to use the second sentence? Using that sentence, you are still accurately describing the situation. Is the second sentence any less accurate? No, it is not any less accurate. And it has the added benefit of avoiding looking like you are trying to sneak the N word in the back door.

Yes, it’s a big deal for someone to tell me which words I’m allowed to use and which words I am not allowed to use. It would also be big deal if someone were to tell me that wearing red tennis shoes is offensive to some group of people, so why can’t I just wear blue ones instead. What’s the big deal which color shoes one wears-- blue is every bit as good as red, right?

Free people don’t like being told what to do if we are not harming anyone by our actions. I don’t like it when right-wingers tell me what kind of sex I can have or what kind of drugs I can take, and I don’t like it when left-wingers tell which words I can use.