–Homer Simpson
Anyway, I think the answer to this, for those of us who were unaware of the new offensive use of the word thug to refer to black people to to start calling more white people thugs. I’ll nominate Governor Scott Walker. He seems like a bit of a thug to me.
[to avoid misunderstanding about my position, I agree with **Miller’s **analysis]
Who the fuck is Common?
If Common is not a “thug”, I, personally, see no reason for Rove to refer to Common as a “thug”. However, I have no idea why Rove chose to refer to Common as a “thug”. I, unlike some others, am not a mindreader. Do you know if Rove believed that Common was a “thug”? Had Rove been informed that Common was a “thug”?
If Rove referred to Common as a “thug”, and YOU object to Rove’s calling Common a “thug”, you could make your concerns known to Rove. I’m not going to notify Rove on your behalf.
I’ve seen no evidence that Rove referred to Common as a “thug” because Common is black, and you’ve provided no evidence that is the case.
Since the word “thug” is not a racial slur, Rove’s correct, or incorrect, use of the word “thug” has no connotations of a racial slur. Unless it hurts your feelings, in which case, my position hasn’t changed.
Damn, that freedom of speech thing can be a real bitch, sometimes. Unless you can produce a compelling reason to change the status quo, you’re not going to change the status quo.
When I find an empirical study from someone smart, white and conservative, I’ll post up a link so you can grudgingly consider that it might maybe be a problem.
Somehow I suspect if I inverted those three descriptors you wouldn’t like a similarly phrased statement.
Which one of them was offensive to you? Is ‘smart’ the new H word?
Relocating to Great Debates.
It’s the new dog whistle. Like when Reagan spoke of welfare queens and Gingrich talks of the food stamp president, we all know what is meant. They just don’t have the guts to come out directly and say it.
Man I am glad I invested in “dog whistle” back before the boom started.
Bear in mind that each example of incorrect/slur use of “thug” in this “handful of cases” was understood by millions of people. So that does count as evidence that this not-violent-just-black connotation of “thug” is widely recognized.
For instance, if Common or Sherman had been called a “Frenchman” or a “toyboy” or a “caterpillar” instead of “thug”, nobody would have had any idea what the speaker meant by that, and the media response would have been all 
But when a non-violent, non-brutal black man gets called a “thug” just because he writes rap lyrics or talks loudly after winning a football game, everybody understands exactly what the speaker means by that.
Do you agree that if Common is not in fact a violent person, Rove was using the term “thug” incorrectly to refer to him?
Not a very difficult question.
Exactly my point. The “status quo” with respect to the meaning of a word is whatever the current usage and recognized connotations of that word may be.
Not necessarily the original meaning or dictionary definition of the word. You don’t get to declare that the dictionary definition is the “status quo” and nobody’s allowed to interpret the word in any other way.
What happens to the meanings of words in the course of linguistic evolution is called “semantic drift”. If the recognized connotations of “thug” drift into racial-slur territory because some racists use “thug” as a racial slur irrespective of violent behavior, then “thug” meaning a racial slur is part of the linguistic status quo.
You don’t get to pretend that hasn’t happened just because the dictionary definition of “thug” hasn’t changed.
No, no. Your first paragraph describes a valid complaint. Your second meanders.
If someone calls someone else a thug, that’s the time to attack the use of the word if, and only if, the word is misused in that case.
“He’s a thug.”
“Why?”
“Well, just look at him! The baseball cap is not on straight!”
“Um… no, no. That’s not what ‘thug’ means.”
And combining with our existing Thug thread.
(post shortened)
Since I’m completely unfamiliar with Common’s body of work, and his private life, I’m leery to commit to your question. However, assuming your assessment of him is correct, no one should refer to him as a “thug”, including Rove.
Unless Common likes to be associated with the word “thug”. He wouldn’t be the first entertainer who used a false image (that of being a “thug”, in this case), to sell their genre of music.
My point is that the people who demand that the word “thug” now be considered a racial slur, or that it should now be considered to be on the same level as the N-word, have not established this current usage or recognized connotations that you believe warrants a change to the status quo.
To date, absent a compelling reason, the use of the word “thug” still falls under free speech.
This is not appropriate for any forum other than The BBQ Pit. Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
As does criticism of the use of the word “thug”.
The anti-free-speech contingent in this thread seems to be the people demanding that nobody should criticize them for sounding somewhat racist when they use a term whose meaning appears to be shifting into the penumbra of a racial slur.
AFAICT, nobody’s telling you you can’t use the word “thug”. What we’re saying is *“you may not be able to use the word ‘thug’ these days without raising some eyebrows about its perceived racial connotations”. *
And some are going so far as to say *“you can’t ever use the word ‘thug’ these days without raising eyebrows about its very definite racial connotations”. *
But none of that constitutes any kind of actual suppression of your right to use the word “thug”.
If you can’t handle other people’s unflattering opinions about your use of the word “thug” without throwing a tantrum over some imaginary attempted encroachment on “free speech”, that’s not our problem.
Kimstu, that is a well expressed thought. It is too bad that those in this thread that could benefit from reading it are unable to comprehend it.
Or unwilling to admit that they could.
This section perfectly encapsulates your fundamental lack of comprehension on this issue.
No-one has argued that “thug” does not fall under the auspices of free speech. As Kimstu’s post suggests, we’re not arguing for use of the word “thug” to be subject to any legal or criminal sanctions. If you want to use the word, go right ahead. Even if you want to use the word exclusively to refer to black people who haven’t committed any anti-social or violent act, knock yourself out. But words have consequences, and what you say will shape how other people respond to you, and how they view you as a person.
Your reference to “the N-word” also makes clear that you don’t understand what’s going on here. My own position on free speech is that the word “nigger” is also part of free speech. I don’t believe that use of the word should be subject to any legal sanctions. If you called a black man a nigger in front of me, i would also try to convince that person that he should not resort to violence in response, although i admit that i might not try very hard to convince him, and that i wouldn’t really blame him if he knocked your lights out.
You seem to be adopting the Sarah Palin interpretation of free speech, whereby anyone who criticizes what you say is somehow undermining your free speech rights. This argument suggests that you have no idea what the principle of free speech actually means. People can use the word “thug” as a racialized term, but if they do, then the same free speech rights that protect their use of the term also protects me when i describe those people as bigots. And calling them bigots is not a violation of the principle of free speech.
Yeah it’s bizarre. Doorhinge, do you think that the word “nigger” is currently illegal or subject to some government sanction? Or do you not understand that free speech has to do with government censorship not public condemnation?