You can. And you would be technically correct. It would also be technically correct that the word today, even when applied to Violent African American Criminals, has a racist connotation that it didn’t have 10 years ago. In other words, since the word has a racist connotation, when you use it, you are not only commenting on the criminals but you are also insinuating, by default, that their race has something to do with them committing violent crime, even if it is not your intent to make such a claim.
Why don’t you ask Richard Sherman if he thinks the word is neutral.
1- Do you deny that certain people are now choosing to use the word as a coded racist word?
2- If you can agree to this then why would you want to use a word that had begun to take on such a meaning? Why leave any room for confusion?
If somebody wears a PD uniform, it’s safe to say that he’s a police officer, and may be called the same. Your nephew, if he’s wearing a Brooks Brothers suit, will not be called a thug. If he is wearing attire similar to what the real thugs and wussy wannabes wear…sure, it’s a safe bet that he may, or not, be called a thug.
Your asserting yourself will not get you called a thug. WGAF if you are sufficiently docile? What do you mean by that, anyway? When were you ‘insufficiently docile’, and called a thug? I suspect that you have a template for activism, and you are quoting it, rather than speaking from experience. Or reality.
Personally, I really don’t care about someone opinion that’s involved in the morass of stupidity that is professional sports and professional sportsdom and their rabid fans/enemy fans.
That’s like asking Jerry Springer about youtube and 4chan comments.
Very funny. I’ve been quite clear on when I’m going to use the word and when I’m mot going to us it. As have the rest of the “pro” side, I think. I’m not seeing anyone defend the use of the term when directed at people who are not acting violently. Not a one. If I’m missing that, I’d be glad to admit an error.
What I’m seeing in the anti crowd, though, is a lot complaining about… something, but I’m at a loss as to what specifically they are complaining about.
I’m the furthest thing from an activist you could possibly hope to find. I’m just black and live in America.
And, yeah, a black guy dressed like a black guy is gonna be called a criminal or wannabe. While the guy dressed like a mafia lieutenant in his ‘Brooks Brothers suit’ will not. That’s the point.
Probably because you make the distinction between ‘copyright lawyer’ and ‘made man’, but choose to conflate ‘college student’ and ‘crook’ because he grew some dreadlocks over the summer.
The OP is upset that he feels the word “Thug” is being re-defined. But it isn’t being re-defined. AIf anything, people have found a new, racist, way to use it. An ADDITIONAL definition now exists. The original definition still stands, and sorry for the Op, so does the new one.
The problem is that thug has racist connotations. You can not separate the word from it’s baggage. So even if you are accurately describing a violent black criminal, the fact that the term thug has racist connotations, means you are inadvertently attaching a stigma of race combined with action.
Some of you people claim it has racists connotations. Mostly through circular logic, appeals to emotion, random “facts” here and there, and an unfortunate occasional confluence of historically correct decidedly non racist verbal descriptors and reality.
So we’ll innocently use some other synonymous term to accurately describe violent criminals, until that word allegedly acquires racist connotations, and then we’ll switch to some other term to convey the exact same meaning until it too acquires a racist connotation and thusly falls by the wayside, at which point we switch again?
I get that that’s the idea, but remain genuinely mystified as to who this helps.
Anyone who is confused by the state of affairs concerning the word “Thug” can take it up with the racists who decided to start using the word in a new way.
I’m going outside to hit myself in the head with a hammer a few times.
Isn’t that precisely what we did with words like darkie, jigaboo, and the N word? They were all accepted at one point. I could list a looooooong list of insults that we no longer tolerate but I feel bad enough listing the three above…
And when in your alternate reality were the words darki, jigaboo, and nigger applied on a regular basis to white people? Much less being slight biased towards white people as one could argue “thug” was/is?
Not to mention that NONE of those three were typically used to describe a behavior.
It is not believable that you interpreted this as a description of people who are genuinely wondering when it’s appropriate. It is obvious (to me, and frankly, I believe to you) that he was describing people who are wondering when it’s supposed to be appropriate according to anti-thuggers.
The quotation I gave from you is an example of exactly that.
If I am wrong, and you really did misinterpret him in this way, then a different approach possibly needs to be taken with you when it comes to discussions about how words work and who should say what when in order to be clear.
Put broadly but basically accurately, the complaint is about any non-black person referring to any black person by the term “thug” for any reason. Some have also complained about certain black people using the term as well.