So you think Obama is just like Rush Limbaugh? Or this woman? The mayor of Baltimore is just like Rush Limbaugh?
Bit of a stretch, doncha think?
Regards,
Shodan
Tweet.
:smack: You asked for something concrete. I provided you with something concrete. And you’re still upset???
I think for Rush, “twit” is the proper term. 
Thanks.
(post shortened)
Of course, dog whistles exist. I own one. Maybe two? I find them to be rather ineffective when training a dog.
I’m hoping you can provide a comprehensive explanation of your technique for spotting these alleged dog whistles you’re referring to. I understand that you believe certain words must be considered dog whistles, but those dog whistles only seem to be noticed by your side of this issue. How can your opposition communicate by dog whistle if your side is the only one that recognizes the dog whistle? Seems to be a rather ineffective form of communication. Are you sure they are dog whistles, and not normal conversation that you might not understand?
You don’t seem to be following the discussion very well. When did those people use the term in the same way that Limbaugh has used it repeatedly about Obama? When did they use it in the way it was used regarding Richard Sherman or Common? Its only a stretch if you are contorting yourself in knots to misunderstand the things I’m saying.
Because it still doesn’t make sense and its still an asinine suggestion.
I figured making you think about it in practical terms would illustrate that for you, but evidently I was mistaken about that. You just doubled down on the ridiculous idea.
If you still can’t see why it makes no sense, then I don’t know how I can help you at this point.
So no, you don’t understand then. Ok, well I tried, not sure how much more clearly I can explain how dog whistles work but the information is out there if you want to try to inform yourself a little better. Maybe start with wikipedia or something. Whatever you’re comfortable with. I think you’d be a bit less confused if you worked on a little more background knowledge of the issue. Also ‘my side’? Which side would that be? The side that pays attention to what is going on around us? The side that listens to others and considers their viewpoints when deciding how to conduct ourselves? The side that doesn’t assume that our experience in life is the only one that matters and anything that seems counter to that is rejected out of hand? That side? So what would that make ‘your side’? The opposite of those things?
I don’t know how you could possibly help me, either. So we agree on that.
Meanwhile, back at the “I Steadfastly Reject This Sudden Rush to Redefine “Thug” as a Racial Slur” thread, can anyone provide a compelling reason to upgrade the word “thug” to a racial slur? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Pearls before swine, Airbeck. A valiant effort, though.
You still don’t even understand the actual topic under discussion.
Nobody is suggesting “upgrading” thug to a racial slur, whatever that means. Who is on the upgrade committee? How does the process work. Is there a sticker that gets applied post-upgrade? Does someone keep a giant ledger? How are the categories of words identified? Are they color coded? Is it like the terror threat color chart that we used to use? What color are slurs, red? What about regular words, are they green? Can you explain for us how you see this happening in real life?
Once again, this is not how language works. Nobody decides to declare a word anything, it just becomes what it becomes based on usage. You can pay attention to how language is evolving or you can not. Like I’ve said many times, I care exactly zero percent what you say or to whom you say it. The people you are addressing may care, but that’s your issue not mine.
I know. Not sure why I’m still beating my head against a wall here. Chalk it up to boredom I guess. Getting a little tedious though at this point.
No, I understand you perfectly. You are trying to say that “thug” has become a racist term. Then when you are provided with examples of how it hasn’t, you repeat yourself.
LImbaugh called Obama a thug because he doesn’t like him. Rove called Common a thug because of his violent lyrics. The mayor of Baltimore called the looters thugs because of their violent behavior. DailyKos called Bundy a thug because they don’t like him. Obama called the rioters thugs because they were violent.
None of these are racist reasons.So your idea that “thug” is becoming a racist slur “based on usage” is wrong.
What you need to try to understand is that “thug”, like most other pejoratives, can be used in a racist way. And that’s a bad thing. But that doesn’t mean that it is generally a racist term. If you want to be able to cry "racist!!!’ when someone uses the term, without any other reason (apart from losing an argument), then you need to show that “thug” is generally a racist term. Which you haven’t done.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m for “twat”
All of this is wrong.
-
I’ve never said that thug has become a racist term. Saying that some people have started to use it in this way is a very different statement. Please debate the things I actually say, not the things that you hear in your head.
-
Limbaugh calls Obama a thug because he is a racist. He is dog whistling to his listeners. This is the usage of thug that has become more common and is starting to cause members of the AA community to speak out. Also see Richard Sherman. Any comments on that one, I noticed you conveniently skipped over him in your hand waving. I’ve also never said that there is no non-racist way to use thug. Please point out to me where I’ve ever made such an assertion.
-
Never said that the word is “becoming” a racist slur. I said some people have started using it in ways that are consistent with racist attitudes. Very different concepts. Again, please reply to the things I actually say.
-
I’ve never once cried “racist” in this thread. I have made no such accusations. Can you point out any instance where I cried “racist” or accused another poster of being a racist? These are very inflammatory things to say, so I’d appreciate a cite, or stop saying that I’m doing this.
When you are ready to reply to the arguments I’ve actually made, please do, but I’m really getting tired of being accused of all of these things that I’ve never once done. Maybe it would help to re-read my posts so you are more clear on what I’m actually saying here.
When the fuck did we get pearls?
There are supposed to be dog whistles that can only be heard by the people who want to call other people racists for using the word “thug”. Not much as a secret code, either. There have been enough red herrings introduced inserted into this thread that it could pass for a fish market. Jumping to conclusions has become the daily exercise regiment. Hypocritical hypocrites happily hyperventilating.
And no one has yet produced a compelling reason to escalate the word “thug” to the level of a racial slur. It is a good day.
:snicker:
Regards,
Shodan
you wanna pearl necklace?
I started to hear, as well as use the word “thug” around the late 90s/early 2000s and up. “Thug” was just a word we used to describe thuggish/gangster types, and usually the person it was ascribed to would call themselves that. The opposite was to call non-gang affiliated people or people who didn’t involve themselves in any type of trouble “squares.”
“Thug” was popularized in music with 2pac, Thug Life, and Bone Thugs N Harmony. It was a popular term in the bay area for a minute too: Thug S*** NSFW music
Talking about falling in love with a thug
So I don’t consider it a racial slur. But at the same time too, some people use it incorrectly solely based on race, as seen when people called Richard Sherman a thug for trash talking in the heat of the moment, post game interview. Thug is someone who breaks laws, does illegal stuff, involved in crime, etc. What did Richard Sherman do to be categorized with people like that?
Agree with this.