In that case, I’m perfectly willing to say the thugs in Baltimore are revolting.
This isn’t hard.
My neighborhood is urban.
Her new boyfriend is…“urban”.
Gamers? Yeah, my buddy is one of them.
The new boss at work is…“one of them.”
The guy who robbed me is a thug!
The mall is too full of “thugs.”
It doesn’t really matter what the actual word is. If you are using it as a dog whistle, people are going to say it’s not cool.
I wasn’t on board with “retarded” suddenly becoming verboten, but my kids explained why they thought I should give it up and I’m glad they did. If a word becomes offensive, why not stop using it?
“Ne’er do well” is still an option.
I don’t want to sound racist, so instead of “thug” I will now use “hoodlum”. Better?
Well, precisely my point. The moment you use it in a way that hurts someones feelings, they’ll suddenly declare it as secret racist code and take it away from you.
At least, that’s what I feel they are doing to “thug”
And what about “thuggish?” Will that now be a skin color description, or is that one OK?
Sadly, those who aren’t racists, or don’t want to be, or even just don’t want to be seen as racists will generally capitulate rather than risk their resistance to a shift like this be seen a tacit racism.
And I want to reiterate: I have had my share of encounters with racists, even have a few as in-laws, and I simply have never heard this word used as code. Actually, the word I think I hear used most that way is “brothers.” As in, “The brothers are upset.” Always uttered by someone whom I feel to be racist, probably because it seems safe to them. I don’t hear anyone saying that we can’t use that word anymore.
I blame whichever rapper decided “Thug Life” was a good thing.
Also, Americans, there are a great many English speakers in the world who are going to continue using English words in the usual way, even if Americans arbitrarily decide they’re unmentionable.
Nitpick: Wasn’t it Dennett who made that dumb suggestion?
Anyway, back to the OP: I think it’s becoming a racial slur because people are using it that way. Why not call rioters “rioters” and the looters "looters? Why thugs? I agree that thug used to mean a big mean guy, body guard type, enforcer. But, people are referring to the rioters and looters and thugs – it’s the people using the word that are redefining it.
On the NPR piece, the interviewer mentioned that there were also African Americans using the word, such as the mayor and the president. The interviewee said that it was a less loaded term when used by blacks, similar to another term we’re all familiar with.
I would love for people to go back to using thug to mean this or that particular person, acting as a bully or criminal, rather than a generic term for looters and rioters. As long as it’s used as a generic term for looters and rioters, specifically black looters and rioters, the racial baggage will get attached to it.
Huh, when I try to picture a “thug”, I first get a Russian or Irish guy.
“Thug life” specifically reminds me of a cat pushing a glass off a table.
This can all be solved if people stop using **labels **to dehumanize people. To me, the impetus behind the anti-thug movement is that people seem more willing to categorize black men as thugs than white men who exhibit similar behavior. People will label a black teenager who experimented with street fighting as a thug, and then use that label to block some necessary empathy, but white kids from the country who get into bar fights are just good ol’ boys who need time to straighten out.
Just stop calling people thugs, hoodlums, trailer trash, criminals, illegals, etc, and refer to them as people. Problem solved.
So if people stop saying “those thugs were rioting, and instead say " those people behaved like thugs,” would that make it an acceptable use?
I agree with mhendo though. Reclaim the term, or try to.
The question is whether that’s happening here.
ISTM that this is more of a dispute about whether certain groups of people are thugs rather than an actual change in the meaning of the word.
IOW people who use the term “thug” to refer to rioters and the like don’t intend anything other than the conventional meaning of the word. The ones who dislike the term are - ISTM - attempting to supress the depiction of the rioters as thugs, and thereby enable a shift in focus to various legitimate grievences that they believe the rioters have, by redefining the word itself as a racial slur.
And there still is, and will be for a long time to come, a large contingent who very much want to be able to use a derogatory term for blacks that is not explicitly racial, and that they either do not see or want others to see as a slur or evidence of bigotry. “Inner city” and “ghetto” and others have had their day and no longer work as non-slurs, so now it’s “thug”.
Is the entire world now moderated according to SDMB rues? 
I wonder if it is partly because both “thug” and “n*gger” have a G at the end of the first syllable.
When “thug” is being used as a racial slur, I have no problem with labelling it as such. When it’s not, I do. But if I say “that guy burned my car - he’s a thug” and if he’s a black thug I am being racist but if he is Hispanic or Asian or white I’m not being racist, that’s kind of silly.
Fortunately it doesn’t matter. If I condemn someone for burning my car and the PC Police say that I am condemning him for being black and this shows that I hate black people, I tend to laugh at them rather than become defensive.
This is kind of a circular argument. “Thug” isn’t a “less loaded” term coming from black people, because in most instances AFAICT it isn’t generally a"loaded" term coming from Australians or Hawaiians or another group.
Sometimes we need to respect people’s feelings. Sometimes it saves trouble to just say “get over yourself, snowflake”.
In general it appears that those who refer to “thugs” make it clear they are referring to those who loot and burn and riot. If one wants to say “that is a secret code message and it means you really hate all black people” that can’t be disproven and it is a waste of time to try.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought only people who protested for unions and worker’s rights were thugs. Or is that only in Wisconsin?
Unfortunately, now that “thug” is becoming widely known to describe a class of people, we clearly need a word that describes people who are “not thugs” I guess cisthug would work.
The participants of the Boston Tea Party were not permitted to keep the tea. It all went over the side. Keeping the tea would have been considered stealing.
Why not call them “marginalized youth acting out in an unproductive and unfortunate manner?” Rioter and Looter are not the same as Thug. Thug does carry a specific connotation to it, and one that I think is perfectly legitemate, I am just not sure it’s a racial connotation.
The fellow on NPR seemed to be suggesting that if any group co-ops a word for some niche purpose, then it’s immediately theirs to define. But I reject that- I think it needs to have wide-scale use in a certain manner before we declare it off-limits.
Thug is a generic term. If you commit acts of violence, you are a thug.
I also, Steadfastly Reject This Sudden Rush to Redefine “Thug” as a Racial Slur.
thug -
noun
› a man who acts violently, esp. a criminal:
Some thugs smashed his windows.
“Vandals” is now a racial slur too, seeing that CNBC used the term to refer to [del]rioters[/del] [del]thugs[/del] civil disobedients in Baltimore.