Yes, I know.
“Thug” can only ever mean the dictionary definition for the word. That’s how words work. “Regards”, for example, it can only mean what the dictionary says it means. To suggest that it might, at times, be a surrogate word is PC lamestreamity policeishness.
(post shortened)
I believe you’re talking about communication. Basically, Person A talks, Person B listens, Person B talks, Person A listens, repeat. Successful communication requires that both Person A and B understand the language being used. If there’s a misunderstanding, it’s usually a good idea to pause and correct the misunderstanding. Or you can continue talking past each other. Or start calling them racists if you want to end the conversation, and get into name calling.
A thug is a thug is a thug. A thug is a person who acts violently. If you know someone acts violently, if you think someone acts violently, if you’re told that someone acts violently, if you mistakenly believe that someone act violently, you can refer to them as a “thug”.
If you’re mistaken, someone may correct you. Or they’ll attack you. Most likely, they just ignore you.
What was your first clue?
Heh. Along the same lines, I was just over in the concurrent thread about the term “cisgender”, where—get this—Starving Artist was proposing that we should reclaim the term “normal” as a neutrally descriptive term for non-transgender people by “trying to deal effectively with those people who use abnormal as a criticism or insult”.
Which, as I pointed out to him, is pretty much the entire population of English speakers, including the ones who compile dictionaries.
Oh yeah, sure, we’ll get that little matter fixed right up. Home by Christmas. :rolleyes:
Honestly, I am baffled by the mindset of these folks. Okay, you’ve gone on record as opposing a particular instance of linguistic evolution. Okay, you’ve proposed “dealing with” or “educating” or “correcting” [ETA: or “communicating about”] the word meanings that you choose to consider “incorrect”, on an individual-use level. Kind of ill-defined and quixotic, but okay, I’m sure you mean well.
But none of that entitles you to immunity from being misunderstood when you choose to ignore the fact that those “incorrect” meanings are generally or frequently recognized in actual current usage.
I mean, hey, I’m quite the advocate of linguistic conservatism myself (hell, I still cling to the subjective/objective distinction between “who” and “whom”). But that shit is sheer linguistic reactionism.
If you consider yourself entitled to throw a “help help I’m being repressed” victimhood tantrum every time you choose to ignore recognized meanings or connotations of some word, and in consequence somebody misunderstands your intent in using that word… well, you’re probably going to end up throwing a lot of tantrums.
I didn’t ask anyone for a linguistic authority. I asked you to back up your statement: “The term “thug” is significantly more likely to be applied to people who are not violent criminals if those people happen to be black.” with anything other than “well it seems like it to me”.
For the record, I am happy to acknowledge that racism IS a problem. I am sure that some racists see all black people as thugs. But, I am sure that there are other racists who gravitate towards “lazy,” “criminal,” or even “asshole.” And if they should apply any of those terms incorrectly (that is, to a black person who does not demonstrate the characteristic) it does not mean that the word is now defined as a racial slur against black people.
So the circle of confusion comes around again… OK, everybody reset… Ahem…
No one ever said that the word has been redefined. Words can mean, and be used to express, more than one single thing.
I don’t believe for a second that no one understands this.
Of course I did no such thing. :rolleyes:
What I did do was:
[ul]Point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with either normal nor abnormal, given that there are many people among us who are outside the norm in any number of ways and who are not scorned or criticized in any way (beautiful, tall, smart, etc.).[/ul]
[ul]Suggest that people begin to confront those who would use normal (and/or abnormal) as a basis for bigotry.
[/ul]
[ul]State at least three times in that thread that I had no objection to arriving at some other term to describe non-trans people, I just didn’t like ‘cisgender’. I in no way, shape or form said I thought ‘normal’ should be claimed as the descriptive term or label of choice for non-trans people. What I said was that it’s silly in everyday conversation to dance on the head of a pin to try to avoid using it.[/ul]
Really. The disingenuousness on display in this thread is amazing.
I confront thee!
Yeah. Shodan has been particularly sad. Didn’t think he usually tries to defend such weakly held hills.
You know, I imagine some of the posters on this thread debating this with actual black people in real life, and I can’t help but imagine their (the posters’) tone being smug and condescending.
Let’s try to get down to basics here. Posters who want to use the word “thug” whenever and however they want without anyone judging them for it: it is your assertion that there is no significant usage of it as a racist code word, and that anyone who perceives otherwise is disingenuous, lying, or being overly sensitive? And that it’s a matter of free speech for you to be able to use “thug” however you want without being judged by anybody for it?
Why didn’t you just post this first, so we would know that the rest of what you were arguing wasn’t real? It would have saved you a lot of typing.
Because you are quite correct - you and the PC police don’t get to make the rules about what words mean, or how other people should perceive me when I use them. And therefore all the rest of your arguments are wrong, and you have admitted as much.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Anyone ever get their leg broken by a song lyric?
[/QUOTE]
Not that I am aware of. Is it your assertion that, unless a word actually causes physical damage, it is not “violent”?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think “thug” is often used as a racist code word, but I’m not going to speculate on why people say they perceive it otherwise.
Of course not. Has anyone actually made this argument?
I just don’t* care *if people are sensitive to the word. Feel free to judge me for calling someone a thug, but I think it’s silly for you to waste the time.
I’m actually kind of surprised that this is a serious debate. As far as I can tell, nobody has ever claimed that “thug” is a racist code word before. If you asked most people to describe what a thug is, they’d picture a mafia goon or a fascist.
Yes, doorhinge, Terr, Shodan, others. Have you actually read the thread? They keep claiming that someone is trying to ban the word and also claiming that nobody should be able to view them as racist for using it. Its exactly what they’ve been going on about this whole time. The term “free speech” has been tossed around in this context for the entire thread.
Where were you during the Richard Sherman NFC championship game interview incident a couple of years back? Yes people have noticed this usage and made mention of it. There have actually been quite a few incidents of it being used this way cited in this very thread. Again, maybe you should read the thread, and you also might want to get out a little bit more since you seem to think that anything you haven’t personally seen simply doesn’t exist.
-
I want to be able to use the word “thug” when describing thugs. Regardless of the thugs’ color. Is that a problem for you?
-
There are dozens if not hundreds of words that racists use as “code”. Are you going to start objecting to the word “lazy”, “shiftless” or “criminal” because some racists may use them disproportionately describing blacks?
[QUOTE=Airbeck]
Yes, doorhinge, Terr, Shodan, others. Have you actually read the thread? They keep claiming that someone is trying to ban the word and also claiming that nobody should be able to view them as racist for using it.
[/QUOTE]
Can you cite a post of mine claiming that someone is trying to ban the word?
If anyone views me as “racist” for using the word “thug” describing thugs, I view him as an idiot. That’s all.
No, I haven’t argued any of those points.
AFAICT the argument is that “thug” used to mean a violent or dangerous criminal, but now the general use has evolved so that it is now a racist epithet.
Unfortunately, no evidence has been produced that the general use has evolved in that way. If the argument is “Yes because nobody called (for instance) Cliven Bundy a thug, and that’s because he’s white”, then of course it fails, because that isn’t true (cite, cite, cite). Or that only racists refer to blacks as “thugs”, which is also false (cite). Or that, in general, the term “thug” is applied to blacks more than whites or other races, a claim for which the one who made it has steadily declined to provide evidence.
So, again AFAICT the argument is from the other side “I am going to consider you a racist if you use the term”, and as I mentioned much earlier in the thread, this is an argument I tend to look upon with indifference at best, and at worst a signal that the other side recognizes that they are losing an argument and want to try to play the race card. That I respond to with giggling and snark.
Regards,
Shodan
No problem at all. You can say whatever you like whenever you like. Others will view you accordingly depending on your usage. Isn’t freedom grand?
Again use whatever word you like whenever you like, however if you start referring to black people as lazy or shiftless, don’t be surprised if you see a few raised eyebrows pointed in your direction. People can’t read your mind, so they can only go by what you say. Nothing unfair about that.
Wow. In the very same post that you ask for a cite you are making the same argument that you asked me to cite.
The first point you make is that you want to be able to use the term “thug” whenever you like. No one has suggested that you not be able to use that word. No one has suggested banning the word. Why are you asserting your right to use the word, if no one has suggested otherwise?