You are using too many hands. It is appropriate to refer to anyone, black or white, as a “thug” if their behavior warrants it. There is no racist component either way.
Regards,
Shodan
No, I can honestly say I had no idea how you were going to justify the gaping inconsistencies in your argument.
I did think you’d do a better job of it than you just did, though.
Because song lyrics can be violent. You are wrong to say otherwise.
Regards,
Shodan
Anyone ever get their leg broken by a song lyric?
If using the biblical-allusion play on words “burn a Bush” in a Def Poetry Jam lyric seems to you like actually making a death threat against the President, you must have been terribly upset by threats like the following:
I don’t recall any conservatives lining up to call any of those people “thugs” for using aggressive and hostile language or metaphorically calling for violence.
You’ll have to ask Rove for a more specific answer. It’s possible, maybe, that Common’s lyric’s were misunderstood to mean Common was calling, or dog whistling, if you prefer, to his followers to commit violence against Bush.
…Particularly aghast over the “Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button” line in Common’s anti-Iraq war song “A Letter to the Law,”…
Personally, I have absolutely no idea what “Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button”, means in English.
It’s sounds like the politically-correct, word-police are demanding that only conservatives refer to more people as “thugs”? It’s a good thing that most people don’t listen to the dog whistles of the PCWP, ain’t it.
We’re not arguing that the dictionary definition of “thug” isn’t race-neutral. Sure, if “thug” means “violent criminal”, then anyone of any race who’s a violent criminal can appropriately be called a “thug”.
What we’re pointing out is that the actual current usage of “thug” is not race-neutral. The term “thug” is significantly more likely to be applied to people who are not violent criminals if those people happen to be black.
No, as I noted before, it’s those who claim to “reject” the recognition of “thug as a racial slur” who are being demanding. You’re demanding that you be able to use the word “thug” without anybody thinking that it makes you sound kinda racist.
What we’re doing, on the other hand, is simply observing that since “thug” does appear to have a noticeable presence as a racial slur in current linguistic usage, you should not count on being able to use the word “thug” without anybody thinking that it makes you sound kinda racist.
Like I said, don’t shoot the messenger. You’re pretending that we’re somehow forcing the evolving racial connotations of “thug” on you against your will, but we’re not: we’re simply reporting them.
“Significantly”? Really?
Free speech can be a bitch. There is still no compelling reason to elevate the word “thug” to a racial slur, and there is absolutely no reason to consider “thug” to be the new N-word.
Was there a study I missed? Cite?
No, you’re trying to coerce others into accepting your misinterpretation of the word “thug”. Your misinterpretation is being rejected, or ignored.
You can call anyone a racist. Your intended victim can consider you to be ignorant, or a bully. Round and a round and a round they go.
I think it’s much simpler educate a person as to the meaning of the word “thug”, and why they used it incorrectly. Or you can call them a racist.
Maybe that nice elderly lady from the movie Airplane could translate for you? 
None that I know of. If it comforts you to think that the absence of a statistical study on the usage of “thug” somehow magically insulates you from being thought to sound kinda racist for using “thug”, knock yourself out.
But that’s not how language works. It’s not like there’s some linguistic authority (like doorhinge’s imaginary “politically correct word police”) that has the power to officially determine when a term can definitively be considered a slur.
And it’s not like those of us who are pointing out evidence that such a term is being used as a slur are claiming any such authority or power to “make” you stop using the term.
Beaver’s mom? 
(post shortened and underline added)
Why didn’t you say that before? :smack: Of course the absence of a statistical study proves your position. :rolleyes:
“Sound kinda racist”? Are you backing off on your sides threat to call people who use the word “thug”, racist? Are you going to call people who use the word “thug” racist, or not? If you’re not, then there’s no reason redefine “thug” as a racial slur.
:dubious: Gee, presenting documented evidence about actual recorded uses of the word “thug” is just so coercive of me. I feel terrible.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
You can call anyone a racist. Your intended victim can consider you to be ignorant, or a bully.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, that’s the risk we all run when using words that are subject to natural linguistic evolution.
Sure, it would be nice if every word only had the meaning of its recognized dictionary definition, without any changing connotations that could cause somebody to misunderstand a speaker’s intended meaning.
But that’s fantasy, not reality. Sticking your head in the sand about issues of linguistic evolution, and accusing other people of trying to “coerce” or “victimize” you when they point those issues out, is just retreating into delusion.
Be careful Jive Ass Turkey…“Beaver” sounds pretty sexist.
Wow, you really don’t understand how language works.
I’ve said all along that I personally understand that many people still use the word “thug” in a race-neutral sense and without any racist intent. If I know somebody’s not a racist, I personally am not going to assume they’re a racist just because they use the word “thug” to refer to a black person.
But I don’t get to make the rules about what words mean, or how other people perceive you because of your use of certain words. Everybody else is gonna use words the way they wanna use them. And as a consequence, the perceived connotations of some words are inevitably going to change.
I have been pointing out to you evidence (though not conclusive proof, and I never claimed it was conclusive proof) that “thug” is frequently used and understood in a non-race-neutral way. That’s not a “threat”, that’s not “coercion”, that’s not me “redefining” anything.
That’s just some facts about current linguistic usage that are causing some people to reconsider whether and how they want to use the word “thug”.
If you’re not one of those people, it’s absolutely no skin off my nose. You use whatever words you want, and you cope with other people reacting to however those words sound to them.
(post shortened)
That is correct.