Before we proceed any further, are you calling me a racist, or implying that I probably am one? Emphasis added to a somewhat convoluted sentence that I want to make sure I understand correctly.
no, because you are clearly making that up
Limbaugh Calls President Obama “A Thug” And Accuses Him Of Threatening The Supreme Court
http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/04/03/limbaugh-calls-president-obama-a-thug-and-accus/185667
Limbaugh: Obama Is “A Street Thug. As A Community Organizer, That’s What You Are”
http://mediamatters.org/video/2011/04/21/limbaugh-obama-is-a-street-thug-as-a-community/182349
Richard Sherman:
The Word “Thug” Was Uttered 625 Times On TV On Monday. That’s A Lot.
The word “thug” has been used so many times by the same sort of people about the same sort of thing that it’s no longer even accurate to call it code—it’s really more of a shorthand. It means a black guy who makes white folks a little more uncomfortable than they prefer. On Sunday night, Richard Sherman made a lot of people uncomfortable. Then on Monday, people said thug on TV more often than on any other day in the past three years.
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-word-thug-was-uttered-625-times-on-tv-yesterday-1506098319
Trayvon Martin:
Trayvon Martin’s Drugs, Guns Cell Phone Records Make A Thug?
I really am not going to waste anymore time looking up stuff because I don’t think it will matter to you anyway. However, this is enough to get started. The information is out there. The question is, is your claim to want the information sincere?
Well, if you think THATS why I choose Erkle/Urkel and Jon/John then have fun with that.
But I’ll give you a hint as to the real reason. It involves reading and making sounds with your mouth.
If I had to guess I would say that you are, to a small degree, back there in the back of your mind. Most of us are. I know I am. I do know this, your repeated attempts to disregard any racist connotation the word has, and your insistence that you are going to do what you want anyway, well they don’t do anything to persuade me that you are not racist.
This article basically agrees with you but does a good job of summarizing both sides:
http://time.com/2369/richard-sherman-thug-n-word/
I think we are done here.
[QUOTE=Ascenray]
Steve Urkel was a popular character played by Jaleel White on the sitcom Family Matters (1989-1998). For a while, he had his own—real—breakfast cereal—Urkel-Os.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, right. I knew that. Well, I was aware of that - I don’t think I’ve ever watched an episode of Family Matters, but I know the memes. I did not, however, intuitively connect the dots between a random mention of one “Erkel” and some 90s sitcom that didn’t air 'round here (I think ? It might have, I 'unno) :o.
Knowing now who “Erkel” is, I… don’t know what he’s in the debate for any more.
I think we were done the moment you logged on to this thread (there was 0 chance of you changing your mind)
Its always nice to get a leg up on who and what’s offensive.
It seems that some folks are so intent on being upset that they have simply lost their sense of humor. The obvious misspelling was… obvious. If it had been Jon Smith, maybe, but Jon Smithe? 
I’m still at a loss as to what the “anti” folks in this thread want us to do. Are we supposed to not use the word “thug” anymore? Are we only supposed to use it in certain circumstances? I wish the word police would lay down a clear law so we can all comply.
If you want to use the term no one can stop you. At the bare minimum I would like to see people admit the word has taken on racial connotations and that when someone like Limbaugh or Hannity uses it, I would like people to acknowledge it is racial code and divisive language.
Speaking of obvious: when people decide to say Thug instead of Ni****, that’s usually painfully obvious. Even if people deny that it happens, or pretend to be confused about when to genuinely use the word “thug”. I can’t believe this is even a debate.
Given the rather difficult task of proving a negative I am not surprised.
You are right. That is why it is so much easier to judge people on their actions. Since this is the internet all we have to judge you on is your sarcasm and the dismissal of the idea that “thug” has racist connotations.
Before we get to that directly, let me describe a categorization someone I worked with used to describe who’s opinion he cared about - the three Fs. The three Fs were Feed me, Finance me, and Fuck me. Moving a little higher up the hierarchy of needs I’ll include a fourth F- Friends. Most of the people that meet one or more of the four Fs have a background with me to give context. They don’t need to put me on double secret possibly racist probation while they test me later. Some professional interaction is with people who don’t have that historical context. In those interactions I’m more circumspect, especially about topic. I don’t worry about whether I use thug, hoodlum, or “bad lolcat” as my term for violent looters and rioters that in this case happen to be from a minority group. I just don’t talk about them.
For the hypothetical to apply you have to already fall outside the four Fs. If you’re one of those people my give a fuck meter is already reduced to a very small range at the bottom of the meter. For entry into the 4Fs, someone going on alert over a word that they acknowledge can have different connotations is a useful screen. Do they employ active listening to clarify? Do they share their feelings about what I said? Those would be ways for them to know my intent. If so that’s awesome and we’re likely to get along well in teh long run. Sitting quietly in judgement isn’t a clear route anywhere. We all have something-ist components to our personalities and behaviors because our monkey brain naturally sees patterns even when they aren’t there. Some of that leaks out for all of us no matter how enlightened and rationale we try to be. If they are so sensitive to ambiguous “dog whistles” that they can’t see/hear the majority of my behaviors and they lack the intestinal fortitude to deal with me personally about specific behaviors, I’m okay with the relationship stopping there. We’re never going to get along well.
Communication is ambiguity. Depending on the audience asshole, as a swear word, may actually be more offensive to the listener. Paying close attention to the actual bigots so you can regularly update social norms only deals with a small subset of ambiguity anyway. Active communication techniques from both sides to clarify ambiguity helps with all communication. It’s a bigger task and unrealistic to expect people in any significant numbers will work on developing themselves that way. I acknowledge that and it will end some social relationships.
Which leads to this. I’m strongly introverted by Meyers-Briggs test not anti-social. 
I greatly weight the quality of relationships over widespread superficial social interaction. I expend my social energy copiously with those that are already in the 4Fs. Outside that, there’s only so much left. I have limits. I tend to actively limit out those that can’t or won’t share the load for communication anyway so I don’t worry if they do it themselves.
I’m pretty sure thug hasn’t come out of my mouth in recent memory. I wouldn’t add it intentionally just to challenge people on a hidden test. I won’t be expending effort to remove the rare case it might get used from my vocabulary, though, unless it becomes far less ambiguous than it is now. I’ve got more important ways to expend mental effort than pandering to subset of poor communicators.
If that’s what you think I’m saying, then either I’m doing a terrible job communicating, you’re doing a terrible job reading, or some combination of the two. Let me clarify:
In the example of mine you quoted, I did not reference the usage of the term in a vacuum. I explicitly give it the context of “rioters”. I did not simply say: Those kids over there are a bunch of thugs. I said: The rioters were acting like thugs. “Rioters”. So, yes, I would hope that people of reasonable intelligence would be aware of the non-racist connotation of the term to see the context.
Had I just pointed to bunch of black kids hanging out on a corner and said “they’re nothing but a bunch of thugs”, then yeah, that could very well be interpreted as racist because…, wait for it… they weren’t acting like thugs.
So, I think the issue here is that when people are acting like thugs (ie, violent), I’m going to feel free to call them thugs. If I call people “thugs” who are not acting like thugs (ie, they aren’t being violent), then I’m being naive if I think the term is going to be seen as neutral. But that would apply to “criminal”, “gangster”, “delinquent” and any number of words that can be used to disparage people who don’t, per se, deserve it.
Is that clearer?
Is that the debate? Because, as I read the OP, that does not seem to be the issue he is raising. I don’t see anyone here defending the use of “thug” towards people how aren’t actually engaged in thuggery-- that is, violent behavior. What I do see is some people seemingly objecting to the use even when violent behavior is involved.
It’s my frustration with this thread, I guess. Too many people saying: Gosh almighty, how is a poor boy ever to know when using “thug” is appropriate? I ain’t buying it.
The “pro thug” folks here know damn well when its appropriate. They are not confused about this at all so I don’t know where you are getting this vibe. Its the “anti thug” people that can’t seen to come to terms with the concept of appropriate (that or they keep arguing against arguments the “pro thug” people aren’t making).
Can you quote a post that typifies that?