HEY- you’re not the ONLY one who hasn’t seen a convincing argument that “thug” is the new N-word.
There are whole Phd’s given out for this sort of thing. Where’s the scholarly paper from before last week?
“Evidence of a shifting paradigm in the subtextual nature of the word THUG” sounds about right.
Then if you want to make progress in this thread, you have to demonstrate that the first group exists at all. We third-groupers, who I suspect make up 90+% of the population, can’t complain to the first group because we don’t think they are real. We not only think “thug” shouldn’t be a racial insult, we also think it isn’t a racial insult and isn’t being used as such.
It sounds to me, and again I suspect I’m in the huge majority, that you’re trying to excuse the behavior of Ferguson and Baltimore residents by accusing anyone who says they’re thugs of racism. You hear someone say “Thugs” and you cry “First grouper!” when in reality they’re in your third group, like most people.
So how about instead of arguing with the first group, you prove to the thirds that there even is a first group?
Because we all know black people are so benighted and paranoid and easily misled that we imagine or fabricate racial animus towards us because… I dunno, food stamps or something.
Us saying it’s a thing doesn’t convince you it’s a thing. Think about that.
I’m just wondering what kind of “proof” will be accepted, since the feelings of actual black people apparently don’t count (in general, not my last post specifically). A confession?
Your feelings are proof. Proof that you want to change the status quo. However, a compelling reason is needed to override free speech. People may not like what someone says but that doesn’t give them any right to threaten, or attempt to coerce, or intimidate others. If you refuse to think as they do, they will call you a racist. That’s a threat, IMHO, of course. Personally, I think those people are ignorant of the English language, and ignorant of the meaning of free speech.
*com·pel·ling
(kəm-pĕl′ĭng)
adj.
Urgently requiring attention: a host of compelling socioeconomic problems.
Drivingly forceful: compelling ambition and egotism.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
compelling
(kəmˈpɛlɪŋ)
adj
arousing or denoting strong interest, esp admiring interest
(of an argument, evidence, etc) convincing
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
com•pel•ling
(kəmˈpɛl ɪŋ)
adj.
tending to compel; overpowering: compelling reasons.
having a powerful and irresistible effect: a compelling drama.
[1490–1500]
com•pel′ling•ly, adv.
Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.*
So individuals using social opprobrium to highlight people for using words they feel are being used as racially motivated codewords is suppressing free speech?
As an aside, I find it fascinating (not just from one perspective, either) that this and the “cisgender” debate are going on at the same time.
I apologize for not including you, or the others, who understand that free speech is not always pleasant, or pretty, or theirs to command.
Many people understand that the word “thug” is in no way comparable to the N-word. I believe those tying the word “thug” to the N-word seriously undermine the seriousness of the N-word.
That would be literally every single person in this thread, because no one is saying you can’t use any word that you want to use.
And again, no one is saying that “thug” is even remotely equivalent to “nigger.”
(post shortened, underline and bold added)
What’s the key word? I suggest that it’s “feel”. They don’t know if the person speaking was actually a racist, or that they were actually using the word “thug” in a racist manner. They just feel that those people might have done so. Maybe.
All together now -
(Sung to the tune of Feelings)
*Feelings, nothing more than feelings
Trying to forget my feelings of love
Teardrops rolling down on my face
Trying to forget my feelings of love *
Yeah, taking offense is a “feeling.” I’d think that’d be obvious.
But either way, you still think that’s suppressing free speech, though?
I know- I was joking about the inclusion.
BUT, my hypothetical paper title is an example of acceptable proof. Some that I can think of, though there may be others:
-Scholarly papers
-Popular press articles about the shift in meaning*, published before the recent events
-Dictionary, thesaurus, etc. showing racial epithet as one of the definitions, or other race-specific terms as synonyms
-I’m open to others…
*The problem with an article showing that someone was called a thug is that it doesn’t show a race-specific meaning. A black person could be a thug, and deserving of the name. It is also possible that a black person was called a thug by a racist, but the term chosen was not race-specific; that is, Thug could just be the chosen term, with no racial subtext, interchangeable with “asshole” “douchebag” or more on-point “criminal.”
One could canvas publications over the last 10 years, and show that:
a. Usage directed at black people has increased
b. Usage directed at white people has decreased
c. Usage against goventmental LEOs, Nazis (actually WWII ones), etc. has decreased
d. Known racist organizations or persons have increased their use of the term, as directed at black people
e. I dunno- I’m not a linguist, but we could probably come up with others
What needs to be shown is that “Thug” is a chosen term (presumably by racists) preferentially towards black people. Not an easy thing to show, I realize, but the burden of proof seems to me to be on those who would argue for something other than that in the dictionary.
The response has been:
-Well, the black community knows what it means
(rather squishy evidence, isn’t it? At least show me where they have cried out en masse over this word previously)
-Well, the black youth culture has adopted it as their own
(Even if true, it doesn’t make it a slur)
-You wouldn’t understand because you don’t run in the right circles
(Huh? So it’s become a dogwhistle, and you should be able to hear it even though you’re not a dog)
-Here’s an anecdote about a black person insulted by being called a thug
(OK, but I bet that middle class black guy with a Masters would have been just as unhappy if they called his kid a “criminal;” Or the football player a “criminal”
ALL of the above is weak sauce for proving anything. We saw people (black people, no less) shamed into retracting their use of a word because of the above? Would any of you take the bet that we’d have the same hue and cry if they had said “criminals?” Looting is a crime- they wouldn’t be wrong. But you KNOW they’d have been just as lambasted
Well, I think Robert163 did say that. And it’s in the title of the CNN story I linked to in the OP. And I think a few others have come close…
Although I agree, this isn’t really a free speech issue.
bullshit. I’ve already posted about Richard Sherman; all he did was toss back a bit of trash talking after his team won a game which sent them to the Superbowl, and the sports world was all over him for being a “thug.”
“Thug” is code for “n****r.” period.
bite me.
You don’t have to like everything that everyone says. There are instances of some speech being avoided because there is a compelling reason not to use a word. The N-word is just such a word. The history of the N-word is a compelling reason not to use the word. The word “thug” has no such compelling reason that it’s use should be banned, avoided, shunned, etc… Just as there has been no compelling reason for the word “thug” to be redefined as a racial slur.
If you call someone a “thug”, you are calling them a violent person, regardless of race. If that descriptor was used incorrectly, you could/should make an effort to educate the person who used the word incorrectly.
The threat (they will call you a racist) is an attempt to force cooperation or obedience to the whims of the politically-correct, word-police. The threat of harm may lead to the cooperation, or obedience, of the person being coerced. Then again, maybe it won’t. But I still consider this a threat to force my compliance.
Because of all this, I Steadfastly Reject This Sudden Rush to Redefine “Thug” as a Racial Slur.
The Richard Sherman incident is a perfect example of when “thug” means “n----r”.
But to say thug always means “n----r”, I can’t get behind.
Are you making an effort to educate all your friends on Fox News about their use of the word?
Don’t forget to include Karl Rove, who called the rapper Common a “thug” when he was invited to a White House event in 2011 because he didn’t like some of Common’s lyrics.
Common is a black man who AFAIK has never been involved in any kind of violent activities.
Why do you think this story is in the news right now?!
I have no problem calling looters and arsonists “thugs” regardless of the color of their skin. I do have a problem with using the word as a substitute for “nigger” which happens more and more frequently. The first time I noticed it was when the American 4x100 meter relay team (maybe in the Sydney Olympics) acted like jerks after winning the race. They did nothing thuggish, though. No violence or property damage. Just a bunch of early 20-something black guys over celebrating in front of TV cameras. I wish they would have been more humble, but they were anything but thugs.
The same thing happened with the USA Basketball team after the Dream Team. Same sort of behavior, but not thuggish. Just young black dudes acting jerkish.
That would be you, then.
Is “nigger” the only racial slur or loaded term there is in your universe ?