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

[mhendo]

@John_Mace

I don’t worry about what ignorant people think about things I say. If I use the word “thug” I trust that intelligent people, like you, will NOT assume there is a racist overtone unless you have good reason to think so. And I trust myself enough to think that I won’t give you good reason to think so.

Right, and on an individual basis, referring to an individual case, that makes complete sense.

The issue here is the overall usage trend. If it becomes apparent, over time, that “thug” is predominantly used simply to describe black men who often aren’t doing anything particularly thuggish or illegal, then i think it’s reasonable to ask whether or not it’s become a racialized term.

And if a particular individual uses thug to describe black men who aren’t engaged in thuggish behavior, or uses thug to describe black men and does not use thug to describe white men under similar circumstances, i think it’s reasonable to ask whether than individual is using thug as a racialized term.

And if these things increase in frequency and visibility over time, then i think it eventually becomes reasonable to describe thug as a racialized term within American public discourse. And as i said earlier, we then have a choice about whether we try to reclaim the term in its original meaning, or whether we simply leave it to the bigots. I certainly wouldn’t argue that it’s currently beyond rescue, but evidence suggests that it is developing considerable racial overtones when used in the United states.

[doorhinge]

No, it isn’t.

There appears to be an ongoing attempt by the politically-correct, word-nazis to force others to accept that definition. It’s failing. The word “thug” is still used to describe violent people, or people who commit acts of violence. There are red thugs, yellow thugs, white thugs, brown thugs, black thugs, tall thugs, short thugs, thin thugs, fat thugs, blah, blah, blah. “Those people are thugs”, means that “those people” over there, that have committed, or are committing, acts of violence (and terrorism), are thugs. This isn’t rocket surgery.

There are people who are ignorant of the normal, generally accepted, use of the term, and they have yet to provide a good reason to change the status quo, other than it hurts their feelings. I suggest that their feelings are hurt because they are too stupid to understand simple English, and rely on the edicts of the politically-correct, word-nazis for guidence. Sort of a - stop thinking for yourself, the politically-correct, word-nazis have done your thinking for you. It’s kind of sad when you think about it.
*thug
(thŭg)
n.

1. A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum.

2. also Thug One of a group of professional criminals, devotees of Kali, who robbed and murdered travelers in northern India until the mid-1800s.

Cite - American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

thug
(θʌɡ)
n

1. a tough and violent man, esp a criminal

2. (Historical Terms) (sometimes capital) (formerly) a member of an organization of robbers and assassins in India who typically strangled their victims.

Cite - Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

thug
(θʌg)
n.

1. a vicious criminal or ruffian.

2. (sometimes cap.) a member of a fraternity of professional robbers and murderers in India, suppressed by the British in the 19th century.

Cite - Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.*

thug

[Miller]

@Smapti

So if I’m following this correctly, it went something like this;

1. Black criminals adopt the word “thug” to describe themselves
2. White pundits refer to black criminals by their chosen term
3. Blacks decry the use of that term as racist

Is that about right?

As with most things you post, especially when it comes to public policy, no.

[Miller]

@doorhinge

There appears to be an ongoing attempt by the politically-correct, word-nazis to force others to accept that definition.

It’s not the left that forcing this definition on people. It’s the left who’s recognized that bigots have started using the word in a clearly racially charged manner, and have started calling them out on it. If successful, we will have preserved the original meaning of the word from the people who are trying to change it to refer to any young black male, regardless of whether they are violent and/or criminal.

[jz78817]

yeah, “thug” is pretty much a code word. I don’t know when it started, but the first time I really saw it was the Richard Sherman thing from a couple of (NFL) seasons ago. right after the Seahawks secured their Superbowl appearance, Sherman was asked something by a sideline reporter, and he gave a brief bit of trash talking towards a SF player who had said something about this previously. The sports press/Twitterverse lit up with sports writers (almost universally fat old white guys) kept trotting out the “thug” word. at a later press conference Sherman called them out and said they should “stop hiding behind code words. You mean the ‘N-word,’ so be man enough to use the ‘N-word.’”

[Little_Pig]

Not sure why I could by pass the SF Chron paywall previously. Here’s a link to the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/05/01/how-loaded-is-the-word-thug-readers-react/?_r=0

[Quimby]

Listen to the way certain people in the media say, “thug” and you know exactly what word they want to use but won’t.

[Little_Pig]

@Quimby

Listen to the way certain people in the media say, “thug” and you know exactly what word they want to use but won’t.

nm

[doorhinge]

@Quimby

Listen to the way certain people in the media say, “thug” and you know exactly what word they want to use but won’t.

“You” know exactly what word “they” wanted to use?

Are you a mind-reader? Carnac the Magnificent, perhaps? What qualifications do you possess that would make your assessment of “their” speech significant, or is this just your opinion?

[cochrane]

There’s also a debate about this going on here.

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

[BigT]

I have to admit, the word seemed to have been dying out (at least in my demographic), and then I suddenly started hearing it in reference to black people.

Even when it is used for criminals, I think it’s used to dehumanize them and thus justify inhumane treatment. Thugs are just things you can outright kill with no remorse.

Criminals may be bad people, but they are still people. Even if you believe in the death penalty, it’s not something a cop in the field or the guy on the street determines.

[doorhinge]

@Fear_Itself

I don’t want to sound racist, so instead of “thug” I will now use “hoodlum”. Better?

Not really. Unless you exclude tall, yellow-skinned, transgender, people, who can’t ADHD. Or maybe it’s the other way around? :smack:

Maybe it’s any word you use to describe violent persons, if it hurts their feelings? “Hoodlum” is obviously a racist term, if you decide it is.

[BigT]

@John_Mace

Well, that’s their problem, not mine. I’m not going to parse my vocabulary because of what someone else might think. If someone is acting like a thug, I reserve the right to call them a thug regardless of their race.

Now, if people who would normally use ‘thug" DO change their actions because of what idiots think, then those people are contributing to the idiots’ taking over the use of that word.

Then you’re admitting to being a racist. Black people tell you the word is offensive to them. You don’t get to tell them that they are wrong. You are not the almighty white person who tells black people what they can and cannot find offensive.

That is the reason any word becomes taboo. If it weren’t for the minorities finding it offensive, we’d still say nigger, chink, fag, etc.

The point is, if you are a decent human being, you try not to offend people needlessly. If someone lets you know a term is offensive, you don’t whine about a selfish need to continue using it, as if you matter more than a minority. You might explain yourself. You might want a history lesson. But when it’s been shown it is commonly understood to be offensive and you insist on using it anyways, you show you don’t care about the people who find it offensive.

You might as well call them niggers, because that’s how little you care about their opinions as human beings.

It really is simple to not be bigoted, and I don’t know why people try to insist on allowing a little bigotry here or there. Just treat other people as people as much as you. You wouldn’t like it if I found something you found offensive and then deliberately kept using it. Don’t do that to others.

[Little_Pig]

@cochrane

There’s also a debate about this going on here.

I Steadfastly Reject This Sudden Rush to Redefine "Thug" as a Racial Slur - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

cochrane, I totally missed that post. Thanks for the referral.

[Little_Pig]

Is this a case where a word is being hijacked?

[monstro]

“Thug” fell out of my vocabulary after the Trayvon Martin case. Not that I regularly used the word before then, but that’s when it stopped being an innocent term.

[Robert163]

@Miller

As with most things you post, especially when it comes to public policy, no.

Yes, but it was rappers who first appropriated the term “thug” to mean an African American criminal, wasn’t it? Kind of like the same way they appropriated the term “Ho” to mean an African American Female?

[magnusblitz]

I don’t think so. The N-word is always used exclusively to denigrate blacks (unless there’s a spin put on it, like “sand n-----r” for Arabs). “Thug” can (and IS) used for people of all races. There’s also plenty of blacks it wouldn’t be used for - I’ve never heard anyone call Obama a “thug” for example (but plenty who would use the N-word for him).

Where I think it really comes into play is being used for someone of low socio-economic status and high aggressiveness/criminality. Unfortunately, blacks tend to fall into that category at a higher rate than other races.

[Robert163]

@magnusblitz

I don’t think so. The N-word is always used exclusively to denigrate blacks (unless there’s a spin put on it, like “sand n-----r” for Arabs). “Thug” can (and IS) used for people of all races. There’s also plenty of blacks it wouldn’t be used for - I’ve never heard anyone call Obama a “thug” for example (but plenty who would use the N-word for him).

Where I think it really comes into play is being used for someone of low socio-economic status and high aggressiveness/criminality. Unfortunately, blacks tend to fall into that category at a higher rate than other races.

so when some conservative talk show host says the word “thug” when referring to young African American males they are not trying to be racist and derogatory?

[tomndebb]

@Richard_Parker

This is a childishly naive view of how racism works.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

When someone posts how their opponents’ arguments amuse them, I imagine toddlers laughing and giggling at the bright colors in a chart that they can’t read. It’s almost never a sign of erudition when someone posts about the amusement engendered by an argument.

Yes. It is so much more “mature” to post cryptic comments that have no genuine meaning in regard to a one-off comment.
I made no observation on how racism works. That is just something baselessly inserted into the conversation to make one pretend to be superior.
One may imagine whatever one wishes, (particularly when it is grounded in nothing more than one’s imagination with no connection to reality).

The reality, here, is that two black people who have, themselves, overcome a host of racist obstacles to achieve their positions of leadership are being accused of racism because they used a word that explicitly indicates a person who hold the rights and person of others in contempt to identify the behavior of a group that attacked and destroyed the property and injured the persons of others of their own social group while “protesting” the actions of a police force that was actively investigating abuse by other members of that force.
That is irony and irony is always amusing.
It does not indicate “giggling” and it makes no broad generalization regarding racism. At a time when there are serious issues that need to be addressed, two twits are out blasting their own people for using the “wrong” word when the word is not even the wrong one to use for rioters.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I’m a little confused: folks that reject the “redefinition” of thug as a racial slur, do you genuinely think that the word isn’t often used as a racial slur? If you think it is used this way, then be a fuckin descriptivist already and recognize that the word’s been redefined, not by politically correct people, but by racists using the word in that manner.

But remember that words can have multiple definitions. “Colored” is a racial slur sometimes, but not in all contexts: when my daughter colored a picture last night, there wasn’t a racial slur involved. Just be aware that the word DOES have a racially-tinged usage–i.e., definition–associated with it, and use the word carefully so that your audience doesn’t think you’re using the racist meaning of the word, unless that’s what you intend.

meh

Of course, any word might be employed as a racial slur in different contexts. If you really think that Obama and Rawlings-Blake were using it as a racist slur, provide the context that makes it so. If the various Google hits had turned up a 95:5 ratio of slurs to descriptions you might have a point. With nothing resembling that sort of ratio and lots of examples of the word being applied to white criminals, no one, here, has presented a serious argument that it has already become a slur in itself. The unfortunate reality is that violent crime tends to be more prevalent in inner city neighborhoods that are now overwhelmingly populated by blacks. I am sure that there are some people who do use thug as a disphemism for black, but there is simply no evidence that such a transformation has become the rule in our society. Stokes and Bryant seem to be actually creating more problems by diverting attention away from actual injustice, changing the focus from problems in the police department to one of “chastising” their own leaders. Had Obama or Rawlings-Blake used a word that was universally recognized as a code for black, I could see the problem, but thug has not yet made that shift. (Referring to the rioters as home-boys would have been out of line and worthy of rebuke.) It might be moving in the direction of becoming a universally recognized term for blacks, but it has not arrived and making a big deal about it in the midst of the current situation is more likely to drive it to that point in the manner of niggard than if they simply focused on genuine problems.
There might even be a point, several months from now, when it would be useful to raise the issue of thug, again, particularly if there had been evidence gathered following the current crisis that it had jumped irrevocably in meaning. However, at this point, it seems like they are creating the situation that they claim to be opposing–and that, too, is ironic.