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

[Melbourne]

@Miller

That’s the thing about language. If people start using a word as a racial slur, it becomes a racial slur, irrespective of its previous meanings or connotations.

And if people start using words like “racial slur” to mean “a derogatory or nickname for a racial group”, it becomes a “[…]”.

But I was confused when I first saw that, because I remembered an older use, where a “slur” was “an insinuation or allegation about someone” derived from “an act of speaking indistinctly”, and a “racial slur” was a phrase or word that attached (slurred with) a derogatory connotation and a racial group. As:

(Dirty or Lazy) (N- or Black)
Greasy (Wop or Itie)

Where there was a slur (also a musical term) between race and some insulting stereotype.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Robert163]

We will not tolerate rioting in this city. Such thuggish behavior is unacceptable.
We will not tolerate rioting in this city. Such violent behavior is unacceptable.
Is it really that big a deal to use the second sentence? Using that sentence, you are still accurately describing the situation. Is the second sentence any less accurate? No, it is not any less accurate. And it has the added benefit of avoiding looking like you are trying to sneak the N word in the back door.
[/QUOTE]
You’re missing the point. It is not a big deal to use the first sentence either.

Both sentences accurately describe the situation, and “thug” is not an attempt to sneak the N word in. That’s a mere accusation on your part.

Allegations of racism need evidence, just like every other allegation. Repetition is not evidence.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@planetcory

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.

Cool. Until then, your allegations can be dismissed with a snicker.

Regards,
Shodan

[Scumpup]

@Shodan

Repetition is not evidence.

New around here, are you?

[Shodan]

@Scumpup

New around here, are you?

You’d think I learned better by now.

Regards,
Shodan

[doorhinge]

@CarnalK

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?

What color is your herring? This is not a legal problem, it’s a social problem. I don’t believe anyone has discussed suing anyone. Has anyone threated legal action? You’re free to speak, others are free to criticize your speech, and others are free to criticize your criticism, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Threatening to call others racist for not abiding by their personal views is also free speech but that act requires more free speech to point out how incredibly ignorant that threat is. Isn’t that why the internet was invented? (just kidding. That isn’t why the internet was invented. It was invented to distribute cute kitten jpegs.)

(FYI - I believe it’s important to remember that anyone can make a mistake. You can make a federal case out of it, or you can choose to educate people. I prefer education. For instance, nom de plumes are expected to be capitalized correctly and bold. doorhinge instead of Doorhinge. Just to be clear, I don’t consider you a racist for what is obviously a simple mistake. I wouldn’t have mentioned it except as an example.)

I follow a simple three step process to troubleshoot any problem. The steps are simple but the discovery and application can, sometimes, prove to be very complicated and time consuming.

1st step - Identify the actual problem.
2nd step - Fix the actual problem.
3rd step - Don’t screw up anything else accomplishing step 2.

So what is this problem? Rove called Common a thug and Obama called the looters, and arsonists, thugs because they destroyed their own neighborhood in Baltimore.

The first instance requires more investigation (aka asking those troublesome questions that seems to irk the wanna-be ignorant) than the second. Obama correctly used the word “thug” to describe the violent individuals destroying Baltimore. Apparently, Obama is familiar with the English language. Good for him.

The Rove/Common “thug” issue has a lot of grey areas. Was Rove aware of who Common was? Was Rove told that Common was a “thug”?

Rove - What’s on the agenda today?
Rove’s aid - Common is appearing at the White House, sir.
R - Who the fuck is Common?
RA - A singer, sir. A rap artist. Similar to 2Pac from Thug Life. He’s also appeared on TV and movies.
R - You know why I like Darth Vader movies?
RA - Yes sir. The comparison humanizes you. That joke never gets old, sir.
R - Har, har. So some thug is visiting the White House. That doesn’t seem right. I should mention that to those so-called reporters who are stalking me.
RA - Yes sir. Whatever you think is best.

The Rove/Common thing seems to have become an actual problem. What should the 2nd step be? The simplest response would be to inform Rove what the word “thug” means, and that Common doesn’t qualify as a “thug”, and why Common doesn’t qualify as a “thug”. Rove probably isn’t aware that Kimstu vouches for Common.

Or people could attempt a much more complicated fix. Claim that Rove is a racist, claim that “thug” is a racist slur, and demand that the word “thug” be the next N-word.

That solution violates step 3. It’s guaranteed to escalate the situation, not solve it. For example, somebody calls someone a “thug”. First, you have to identify the skin color of the somebody and the someone. If a yellow person called a red person a “thug”, it’s not an issue. If a white person called a black person a “thug”, some will demand that the white person must be identified as a racist. Some people will then point out that those calling the white person a racist are ignorant of the English language. Others will wonder why such a minor issue should result in threats of coercion. Some might even start an internet thread wondering [U[what’s up with the language police lately. Some Europeans might wonder if mary-ju-wanna has not only become legal in some U.S. States but has now become a mandatory consumable. It all gets so complicated if you chose not to identify the actual problem and fix the actual problem.

Why can’t we all get along? THUG LIFE - Drop the “T” and get over here, my brother.

[andros]

@doorhinge

For instance, nom de plumes are expected to be capitalized correctly and bold. doorhinge instead of Doorhinge. Just to be clear, I don’t consider you a racist for what is obviously a simple mistake. I wouldn’t have mentioned it except as an example

Point of order: while I agree that one’s internet message board handle should most politely spelled as the user writes it, the bolding thing is purely an affectation that some of us started ages ago for the sake of clarity. It is not, to the very best of my knowledge, any part of written or unwritten board etiquette.

OTOH, I find whether or not my posting name is capitalized as silly as denying that “thug” has borne, increasingly and for years, a racist connotation in many circumstances. So, yanno.
.

[Miller]

@doorhinge

The Rove/Common thing seems to have become an actual problem. What should the 2nd step be? The simplest response would be to inform Rove what the word “thug” means, and that Common doesn’t qualify as a “thug”, and why Common doesn’t qualify as a “thug”. Rove probably isn’t aware that Kimstu vouches for Common.

You honestly think the problem here is that Karl Rove doesn’t know what the word “thug” means?

[doorhinge]

@mhendo

…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.

(post shortened and underline added)

And what they say will shape how other people respond to them, and how they view them as a person. It’s a vicious cycle. But people should feel free to attempt to bully, and coerce, people into thinking as the politically-correct, word-police decide. And be prepared to deal with the consequences of their own actions.

I seems much simpler to simply explain to Rove what the word “thug” means, and why it doesn’t apply to Common.

And I’m glad that you are no longer confusing yourself about this being a legal issue.

[doorhinge]

@Miller

You honestly think the problem here is that Karl Rove doesn’t know what the word “thug” means?

Have you established that it isn’t?

I believe the problem is the whining of the politically-correct, word-police who chose to ignore the simplest solution. ie K.I.S.S.

[Miller]

@doorhinge

Have you established that it isn’t?

I think the odds that a college educated, well-read, and professionally successful figure such as Karl Rove doesn’t know the meaning of the exceedingly common word “thug” is too ridiculous to honestly contemplate.

[mhendo]

@doorhinge

And what they say will shape how other people respond to them, and how they view them as a person. It’s a vicious cycle. But people should feel free to attempt to bully, and coerce, people into thinking as the politically-correct, word-police decide. And be prepared to deal with the consequences of their own actions.

I’ve never suggested otherwise. It was you, you might remember, who got that particular ball rolling when you said:

“To date, absent a compelling reason, the use of the word “thug” still falls under free speech.”

This was a complete red herring, straw man, stupid argument, whatever you want to call it, because no-one in this debate, as far as i can tell, had ever suggested that the use of the word “thug” did NOT fall under free speech.

But you keep setting up those straw men and fishing for those red herrings, if it keeps you amused while people who understand the issues have a rational conversation.

[billfish678]

@Miller

I think the odds that a college educated, well-read, and professionally successful figure such as Karl Rove doesn’t know the meaning of the exceedingly common word “thug” is too ridiculous to honestly contemplate.

For a moment there I thought you meant Obama and the mayor.

[doorhinge]

@mhendo

I’ve never suggested otherwise. It was you, you might remember, who got that particular ball rolling when you said:

“To date, absent a compelling reason, the use of the word “thug” still falls under free speech.”

This was a complete red herring, straw man, stupid argument, whatever you want to call it, because no-one in this debate, as far as i can tell, had ever suggested that the use of the word “thug” did NOT fall under free speech.

(post shortened)

And it’s your opinion that my saying, “the use of the word “thug” still falls under free speech” can only be made if someone first stated that the word “thug” did NOT fall under free speech??? Thank you for sharing your opinion but that is simply inconceivable.

[mhendo]

@doorhinge

And it’s your opinion that my saying, “the use of the word “thug” still falls under free speech” can only be made if someone first stated that the word “thug” did NOT fall under free speech???

Why bother saying it, though? Why bother, in an argument about the usage of the word, to make a rebuttal to an argument that no-one has ever made.

It’s like if we were debating the causes of global warning, and you came into the thread and said, “To date, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the sun is hot.” Well, yes. It is. And your observation is correct. And you can make the observation. But it’s a stupid observation because it doesn’t advance the debate.

@doorhinge

Thank you for sharing your opinion but that is simply inconceivable.

I imagine that the list of things you find inconceivable is pretty long.

[doorhinge]

@Miller

I think the odds that a college educated, well-read, and professionally successful figure such as Karl Rove doesn’t know the meaning of the exceedingly common word “thug” is too ridiculous to honestly contemplate.

And yet you did just that.

Ok, let’s keep asking questions until we identify the actual problem. Assuming Rove knows the meaning of the word “thug”, was Rove told that Common was a “thug”? For all I know, Rove didn’t take Kimstu’s sage advice.

[doorhinge]

@mhendo

Why bother saying it, though? Why bother, in an argument about the usage of the word, to make a rebuttal to an argument that no-one has ever made.

Excuse me? I don’t remember electing you as my representative to the politically-correct, word-police commission? Who said it was a rebuttal?

[Miller]

@doorhinge

Ok, let’s keep asking questions until we identify the actual problem.

Just so long as the answer is never, ever, under any circumstances, “racism.”

[doorhinge]

@Miller

Just so long as the answer is never, ever, under any circumstances, “racism.”

I refuse to accept your terms. I can’t imagine anyone excepting your terms.

[Shodan]

@Miller

Just so long as the answer is never, ever, under any circumstances, “racism.”

And you will never admit that it could be anything but.

Regards,
Shodan