Yes! Maybe you are finally starting to get it. Although you still fail to understand this this applies exactly the same way to you. One more step to go and by Jove you may actually comprehend what has been said to you so many times in this thread.
So in order to not be the PC Word Police or whatever you call it, I have to be a more aggressive version of the PC Word Police and actually hunt people down who have no intention of stopping their racist usage and confront them? Do you actually think this makes sense?
The point of a dog whistle is not for it to be understood by the general public, but for it to be understood by the intended audience. Once the dog whistle is understood to all of the general public it ceases to be a dog whistle and becomes just a whistle.
So you’ve essentially setup a standard that will protect dog whistle terminology forever from scrutiny.
What has been proven in this thread is that the politically-correct word-police can not provide a compelling reason for society to comply with their demand that the word “thug” should now be considered a racial slur.
It’s also been established that you can call anyone who arbitrarily uses the word “thug” to describe black people, a racist.
And it’s been established that anyone who choses to go with the arbitrary name-calling option, will themselves be subject to public scrutiny.
How droll.
Personally, I believe their efforts would be more effective if the politically-correct word-police chose to educate the individual users as to the proper, and socially acceptable, meaning and use of the word “thug”.
Or they can continue to make up new meanings for the words they don’t understand. That should make future good communication almost impossible.
Judging by your inability to reply to anything I actually say in this thread, communication is already impossible with you. Once again I’m not talking about what I think, but rather what the people you speak to will think. If you don’t care what anyone thinks then why are you so adamant that no one be allowed to think you are a racist if you use the word? You are not being consistent logically here.
Society is already providing the reason. People are speaking out about the usage of this word and how it can be percieved. You can listen, or you can do what you are doing which is essentially just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “nanana I can’t hear you”. Either way society will move on, with or without you. Means exactly zero to me.
No, your interpretation doesn’t make any sense to me.
As your initial step, I suggest that you first find out why a person used the word “thug” in a way that you find objectionable. In other words, identify the actual problem.
Shouldn’t you stick to what you actually think? As opposed to what you think other people may, or may not, be thinking? I’m sure you know more about what you think than your speculations as to what others might be thinking.
No one has actually provided a compelling reason to elevate the word “thug” to that of a racist slur. Except for the suggestions based on clairvoyance, the politically-correct word-police don’t seem to have a leg to stand on.
I am listening to the people who are targeted with the word thug and I care about what they have to say on the topic. You are listening to … the voices in your head or something? Does it even matter to you what Richard Sherman had to say about being labelled a thug for being excited about winning a championship game? I actually think of others and not just myself when I decide how I wish to conduct myself. Maybe that’s the difference here.
Its not my job to convince Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh how not to sound racist. Do you think if I sent them a sternly worded letter about usage of the word they would listen? Racists are going to be racists. You can pay attention to what’s going on so that you can avoid being lumped in with them, or you can continue calling whoever you want whatever you want. Like I said before, means exactly zero to me either way.
Again, if you do not care what anyone thinks about you or your word choices, when why are you posting so much in this thread and in such a defiant manner? Either you care or you don’t whether you are perceived as being a racist. Denying that you do and then arguing passionately that no one should be allowed to judge you based on your language is pretty strange though. If you don’t care, then just don’t care.
You said I need to go convince the people that use it in a racist way not to use it in that way.
What interpretation are you talking about? I simply stated what doing that would actually mean. I guess you didn’t really think it through before suggesting it.
Your whole idea is nonsensical to me. Don’t blame the way I phrased it.
Always with the negative waves. Why do you have to be aggressive? Why do you chose to hunt down people? They’re not going to listen to you if they’re thinking about dialing 9-1-1. just sayin’
You chose to phase it that way. Who should take responsibility for what you wrote?
As your initial step, I suggest that you first find out why a person used the word “thug” in a way that you find objectionable. In other words, identify the actual problem.
So no actual response to the substance of what I’ve said? … again …
Your idea is for me to go to those who use thug in the wrong way and educate them personally. Forget about phrasing, this is an asinine idea. How would this actually be accomplished, in the real world? In actual reality. How do I get through to Rush Limbaugh? Can you give me anything concrete?
Is this all your going to do? Repeat yourself again and again without addressing any of the substance of the debate? If so, what is the point? Its like debating the moviephone guy.
You don’t have to go to everyone who calls black people thugs and personally educate them. Just don’t feign being righteously offended on someone else’s behalf when you hear the term being used appropriately, for starters.
No, actually you are doing something I mentioned earlier - trying to define accusations of racism as unfalsifiable.
If you want to assert that when someone says “thug” they really mean “nigger” there is no way to prove otherwise. Which is fine - I can use this to adjust my opinion of the accuser accordingly.
I have never made such an assertion. Could you point out where I did?
I am not sure where you guys are getting these ideas. Are you certain you mean to be addressing me with this remark?
When did I say that ‘thug’ means ‘nigger’ and when did I say that anyone that ever uses the word ‘thug’ is a racist? I don’t recall saying either of these things. It would be really helpful if you guys would reply to things I actually say instead of these extreme positions that noone has espoused in this thread to my knowledge.
Did you miss my post about how dog whistles work? Why do you think that you get to determine the criteria for what constitutes a term becoming a dog whistle? Who gave you that authority? Did you get a certificate or something like that? I’m listening to the people that are being targeted with the term. Who are you listening to? The same voices that doorhinge is listening to?
At any rate, I reject your conditions for the reasons I posted earlier, so these demands for evidence will go unfulfilled since I don’t agree with your assertion that this is the only way to define a dog whistle, since you know, requiring the general public to all be aware of it by definition makes it no longer a dog whistle. As I explained before. Your condition makes it impossible to ever prove a dog whistle, so all you are doing is trying to insulate those who use such language from ever being criticized. Not sure why that’s a goal to strive for, but to each his own I guess.
And you’ve created a criteria that makes it impossible to prove that any dog whistles exist. How does that make sense? Unless you still don’t understand how dog whistles work. So stalemate then? And I’m not trying to make any authoritative statements on language. You are. My position is descriptivist and yours is prescriptivist. So again, from where do you derive your authority to declare what constitutes a dog whistle? You don’t get to get away with just saying I’m doing it too when I am doing no such thing.
The difference here is, only one of us is trying to protect dog whistle racists from the possibility of being criticized for their racism. One of us is taking into consideration what the targets of these dog whistles think and trying to become a more enlightened person.
*Dear Mr. Limbaugh
Yesterday, you chose to incorrectly label Common as a “thug”. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The word “thug” means someone who commits acts of violence. Common has no history of committing acts of violence. Please refrain from repeating your mistake in the future.
You may not be aware that President Obama recently referred to the looters, and arsonists, who destroyed the Sandtown area in Baltimore, as “thugs”. Obama correctly used the word “thug” to describe the terrorists who acted violently. You should strive to be more like President Obama.
Regards
(insert your real name here)*
You could phone the studio where Limbaugh works, send an email, send a twit (is that the right term for twitter intercourse?), send snail mail, stop by his studio, or you could throw your hands up into the air and say this is impossible. Your choice.
This is still an insane suggestion, no matter how many times you repeat it. Sorry, but its not my fault if you choose to do whatever you want without considering others and as a result people start to think your’re just like Rush Limbaugh. That is your choice, and yours alone. Only you can control your actions, and actions have consequences. Stick your fingers in your ears and deny what is going on in the world all you want, but reality will continue to exist whether you like it or not.
Let me clear something else up. I have never ever said that you shouldn’t use the word. I’ve never said anything with either the word should or shouldn’t regarding word usage. I’m speaking from a descriptivist perspective. I’m commenting on how people ARE using the word. Right now. In reality. I’m not stupid enough to think you can just change how people use language through force of will. Why do you think this is possible? That is not how language works. That’s not how any of this works.
