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

Ok
Then I will clarify
Some people hear other people (media figures) use the word ‘thug’ and because it sounds like (to them) that the word ‘thug’ is being used as a substitute for the N word it makes those of us who don’t hear the substitution racist.

So the people who assign a color to ‘thug’ are not racist and those who don’t assign a color to ‘thug’ are.

Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar and maybe the people who think it is something else need to look to themselves as to why they need to make it something more.

That’s what we’re doing.

That’s NOT what we’re doing.

Probably, yes.

Since we’re not doing that for this word, it’s unlikely we’ll do it for any hypothetical future word.

No, because again, nobody is trying to prevent you from using whatever word you want to use.

I don’t have a problem with it. I mean, he’s a cunt, but that’s besides the point.
And I’m not married to the word “thug”, nor religious-like insist on what words should mean or how people *should *be taking words irrespective of actual usage.

Well maybe that’d be because nobody asserted such, either. You know, you really should read the thread at some point. I feel like that could help.

Nope! Still not even close.

There are three basic groups involved in this issue.

The first is racists, who have started to use “thug” as a catch-all term for any young black male.

The second are people who have noticed what the first group is doing, and are saying, “Hey, that’s fucked up, what those people are doing with the word ‘thug.’”

The third group are people who have not noticed what the first group is doing.

If you do not assign a racial dimension to the word “thug,” you are either in the second, or the third group. If you are in the third group, the people in the second group are not talking about you. They are talking about the people in the first group. If you don’t think “thug” should be a racial insult, don’t complain about the people in the second group, complain about the people in the first group. Those are the ones changing the meaning of the word. And the more time you waste arguing with people in the second group, and ignoring the people in the first group, the more ground the people in the first group are going to make in permanently changing the connotation of the word “thug.” Which is something that neither the people in the second group, nor the people in the third group, want to see happen.

LOL. Thank you. This is the best post of the whole thread.

I award you a Post of the Day award (but no monetary compensation).

handsomeharry is covering both sides. Assuming there were no odds involved, that’s a safe bet.

I see people are still floundering in their attempt to attach the meaning of the word “thug” to the meaning of the N-word. Which isn’t going to solve their problem, anyway. Other words will no doubt hurt their feelings in the future. I wish them the best of luck swimming against the current of free speech.

Why did the N-word become the N-word? The N-word represents an embareassing time when human beings owned other human beings. It brings back memories of whippings, beatings, mutilations, and lynchings. The only other word, that I’m aware of, that invokes such horrific memories is “Nazi”.

How is the N-word similar to Nazi? According to Mike Godwin on Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies:

*I Seem To Be A Verb: 18 Years of Godwin’s Law -

…Overall, though, I’m content that the Law has as much popcult traction as it does. My feeling is that “Never Again” loses its meaning if we don’t regularly remind ourselves of the terrible inflection point marked in human culture by the Holocaust. Sure, there has been genocide before that point and genocide after it, but to see an advanced, highly civilized nation warp itself into something capable of creating such a horror—well, I think Nazi Germany does count as a first in that regard. And to a great extent, our challenge as human beings who live in the period after that inflection point is that we no longer can be passive about history—we have a moral obligation to do what we can to prevent such events from ever happening again. Key to that obligation is remembering, which is what Godwin’s Law is all about.*

http://jewcy.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/i_seem_be_verb_18_years_godwins_law

Godwin’s opinion is that “Never Again” loses its meaning when it is diluted by the various discussions comparing anything, and anyone, else to Hitler and Nazis.

This seems similar to the current attempt to tie the word “thug” to the N-word.

Meanwhile, back to the “thug is the new N-word” discussion.

nig•ger /ˈnɪg ər/ n.
— usage. The term NIGGER is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a , 1b , and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. Definition 1a , however, is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way. Definition 3 is not normally considered disparaging - as in “The Irish are the niggers of Europe” from Roddy Doyle’s The Commitments - but the other uses are considered contemptuous and hostile.—
— n.
1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a. (a contemptuous term used to refer to a black person.) b. (a contemptuous term used to refer to a member of any dark-skinned people.)
2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. (a contemptuous term used to refer to a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.)
3. a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.

How does that compare to “thug”?

thug /θʌg/ n.
1. a vicious criminal or ruffian.
2. (sometimes cap.) a member of a fraternity of professional robbers and murderers in India, suppressed by the British in the 19th century.
[1800–10; < Hindi thag lit., rogue, cheat]
–thug′ger•y, n.
–thug′gish, adj.

I believe that the attempt to force political-correction on the majority of the nation weakens and dilutes the meaning, and force, of the N-word.

The bottom line is that “thug” is in no way comparable to the N-word.

(post shortened)

Isn’t this the I Steadfastly Reject This Sudden Rush to Redefine “Thug” as a Racial Slur thread?

I’m still the one who hasn’t seen a convincing argument that “thug” is the new N-word.

Keep using as if it weren’t and eventually enough people will have explained it to you. Some will do so rather forcefully, perhaps.

That’s because nobody is arguing that. Seriously, you should take Kobal’s advice and try reading the thread before you respond further. It’ll really help you figure out what’s going on in here.

Tsk, tsk. More subtle coercion. Or is that an outright threat?

I hope you don’t mind if I reject your attempt to bully me into complying with your politically-correct definition change of the word “thug”. It’s not personal, it’s just business. :smiley:

Isn’t the title of thread - I Steadfastly Reject This Sudden Rush to Redefine “Thug” as a Racial Slur?

Terr: “I have a problem with people telling me I should not/cannot use the word because of THEIR silly reasons.”

It ain’t me, caring how little I do what you think. It could be pretty much everybody you meet, though. Suit yourself.

Coincidentally…

I know, I know, just one person, she didn’t mean anything by it, blah blah blah. Just putting it in as a data point.

I can’t speak for others but I never asked anyone to stop saying anything. I am just pointing out an observation. Also I did not call anyone on this board racist but I believe the people in the media who are doing what I described probably are.

Not sure I would elevate sume huffpo blog entry to the status of “data point”. And not sure "coincidentally " fits either.

About how black people genuinely feel about the word and its implications? Why not?

There is another thing that bothers me about trying to remove the word thug to describe people looting/burning/destroying property. I think people against the term are annoyed and opposed to two separate things but only mention one.

The one mentioned is of course the negative connotations and links to black people and not other people. I think they are right about that to an extent. The term is more commonly applied to black people behaving in a certain way. Even if we normalized for any differential rates of behavior between blacks and other groups, I still suspect there would be a greater use of the term with black people compared to other groups.
But there seems to me to be another aspect that bothers the same people complaining about the term thug. What is that exactly? Thug ALSO describes certain types of BEHAVIOR. And therein lies the holy enemy of our time for many people on the left. Behavior is not controlled completely by society, it is controlled by individuals. Society can influence and nudge people, but ultimately it’s the people themselves that are the final arbiters of how they behave and interact with the world.

What’s wrong or controversial about that? The more we buy into that narrative, the less power a completely external model of problems takes hold. The reason people are behaving x way or y way is not because of their own failings, it’s because of societies failings. Failures of quality school distribution, economic opportunity, discrimination, police profiling, etc etc.

By using a term to describe people and their actions like thug, we are endorsing a view of people and their actions that presumes some amount of an internal locus of control, not JUST an external locus of control like REALLY far left liberals are sometimes want to do.

Now personally, I think that’s the right model, I don’t want people to farm out the rationale for why someone does something so heavily towards what outside forces made them do. There is a denial of agency and responsibility in that view that I find particularly vile and insulting. Poor little crippled black people, incapable of making better decision until the entire universe is just and fair. It’s a ridiculous model to focus on because we have LESS control over society at large than we do over ourselves. It’s not that you don’t focus on making society more just, but to completely ignore the component of your own behavior that you have FAR more control over seems criminally counterproductive.

@Leaper:
Well, first off the blogger is white. Secondly, I generally don’t accept some random person’s blog to be true. Seems a little too on the mark yet outrageous.