I think your sarcasm says more about your true intentions than the lack of sources to document the changing use of this word
All black people? What percentage of black people would you say are offended? Are there polls to support this contention? Do you think those black people are offended when reading this article?
If you don’t follow the NFL, and or don’t participate in social media, you may have missed the racist overreaction to Richard Sherman’s angry, loud post game interview.
Shit, it happens. This ain’t complicated. People do use “thug” in place of “Ni****”. Yes, it happens.
Do you know how much a subscription to Dog Whistle Monthly costs? I’m on a fixed income here.
I bet a lot of people, especially white people, picture a black person when they imagine a violent person. Probably code for racism. Best avoid using it. Well, unless you’re clearly and specifically talking about a white violent person. Then it’s OK.
This is why it’s a big deal to go after a word needlessly.
1- Your example of shoes is a poor example since shoes, unlike words, have no moral connotation
2- It would seem then, that your primary concern is doing what you want to do, even if it using words that are now code for racists. Whereas you may not (though I doubt it) mean anything racist by the term, the fact that others do, and it is now perceived as racist, that does not matter to you. What matters to you is doing what you want to do. Is that more or less correct?
And those intentions would be?
Again, can you show me some polls, preferably scientifically conducted, that would show a widespread perception of racist connotation to the word? Or am I supposed to take your word for it?
My point is that you seem to be thinking that your default meaning is the default meaning of intelligent people, and that people that default to the other meaning,* even in contexts where it would clearly be applicable*, are so ignorant as to be beneath contempt–you described them as people you wouldn’t bother to even consider in your word choice, because they are so fucking stupid they are incapable of participating in discourse with intelligent chaps such as yourself. My point is that there are plenty of intelligent people–many of whom are, themselves, young and black, who have a very different frame of reference and who would not immediately make the leap that you considered their primary set of connotations so obscure, so fringe, so trivial, that no one with even a room temperature IQ could ever think that you were intending them.
I really don’t see how this is any different from an octogenarian referring to black people as “colored” or “negro” in all contexts, and defending that as “it was perfectly polite in my day, I mean it as perfectly polite, and anyone too ignorant to understand that I mean it that way is so ignorant that I don’t give a fuck what they think.”
Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical? I posited a situation where some group claimed that red shoes were offensive to them.
Your sarcasm really really really is not making the case that you are not a racist
It’s a bit early to ask for polls, since this issue was only substantively raised with the recent riots. So for now we either have to debate the issue qualitatively or choose a course of caution until some data comes out.
You mean, like NAACP does?
I’ll also confess to finding the idea that Urkel was remotely as important to African-American history as John Smith is to Mormon history extremely ignorant and frankly racist.
And no, I’m not saying he is racist.
1- Nobody claims it is widespread
2- If I can find you evidence that the word is starting to take on racist overtones would you agree that it is best to refrain from using it
ok, sure, what about:
2- It would seem then, that your primary concern is doing what you want to do, even if it means using words that are now code for racists. Whereas you may not (though I doubt it) mean anything racist by the term, the fact that others do, and it is now perceived as racist, that does not matter to you. What matters to you is doing what you want to do. Is that more or less correct?
So before the riots was the word not racist or did no one care that it was?
If it is not widespread why should the tiny minority that is supposed to be offended catered to?
If I tell you I am mortally offended by the word “widespread” (who knows, maybe I think it is sexist), would you agree to stop using it?
You expressed them for all to see. You clearly thought it highly relevant that the people accused of having racial bias were themselves black.
And my motivations are still irrelevant, despite your repeated attempts to re-insert them into the conversation that you started by declaring your opponents “twits.” It is very bad form to respond to disagreement with your views with ad hominem directed at me (or anyone else).
I’m not pretending anything. My sole point was that your view that being black insulates people from holding white supremacist prejudices or engaging in racist behavior is an overly simplistic view of racism–the sort of thing that a good eighth grade civics class should disabuse a person of.
The rest of your argument about why “thug” is not racist is irrelevant to this point, and would apply to whether the speakers were black or white. Your prominent and repeated notation of the fact that they are black is what shows you are applying a rather superficial and narrow idea of what racism is and how it operates.
Wellll… not really, although if I did hear an octogenarian use one of those words, I’d be “freakishly brilliant” enough to realize that said octogenarian might, in fact, be simply using words that he or she was familiar with. I don’t go around assuming everyone in the world uses words the same way I do. In fact, one needn’t be “freakish brilliant” at all in order to do that. It’s pretty natural to anyone with a smattering of an education.
“Colored” and “negro” are now more archaic than offensive, but their meaning has not changed. They still mean today what we’d more likely call “black”. “Thug”, otoh, has a long history of meaning someone who is a violent criminal. The fact it has recently taken on additional meanings does not erase the older and still more common meaning.
You are acting as if it is a fait accompli that “thug” is beyond the pale for everyday use. It is not.