Okay, but we’ll presumably then make innocent use of some new word to describe folks of any race who engage in [del]thuggish[/del] that sort of behavior. “Hoodlum” has been mentioned upthread; could we use that one for a while, and then drop it when people start saying it’s offensive?
And then what? We start using another other word for a while, until we’re told that one’s now off-limits too? We could maybe switch to “hooligan” until we’re told it’s now also on the objectionable list – and then, I dunno, we dust off “ruffian” and have a good run with it, because it’s not offensive yet, but it’ll eventually get there, and that’s when we should next stop to crack open a thesaurus?
What does that accomplish? Who does it help? We’ll always find it handy to have some useful shorthand term for describing folks who do stuff like that; what’s the benefit of periodically discarding an old one and swapping in a new one?
I find it kinda funny that the people that find thug inherently racists or a code word for racism probably consider themselves more enlightened or insightful than your average Joe.
Yet, apparently, in the course of normal conversation their heads would explode if from the context they tried to tell the difference between thug being used appropriately versus being used inappropriately.
Oh, except when they can read minds. Except when they can’t.
I’m not sure if people are being willfully obtuse in this thread or are legitimately this naive. Listen to how the word was used by some last year with Richard Sherman, or earlier this year with Ferguson and now Baltimore. Yes the word Thug has a meaning but it is also clearly becoming a dog whistle word.
Wait a minute here. You post a thread about an article that’s behind a paywall, and when someone asks you to explain it you tell them to google it? That’s not proper etiquette for the dope.
I’ve heard people use it in place of the N word. Yeah, it happens, and I find it odd that people are dnying that the word can be used in place of another word. I saw it explode in the racist rantings online concerning Richard Sherman’s interview outburst. In no way did Mr. Sherman fit any definition of “Thug”, but c’mon, people couldn’t hardly call him ni**** on Facebook, could they? So they called him Thug. It happens. Context matters. Intention matters. A rose by any other name? It’s just a word. What’s behind the specific usage?
I think doorhinge has a valid point. You present the idea that what certain people really mean by thug is so obvious it goes without saying. But that’s the topic of debate in this thread, whether or not it has such a connotation. It’s begging the question.
They can be offended as much as they like. The are not the almighty black people who can tell me what words I can use and whether I am a racist or not. Hint: while all racism is offensive, not all offensiveness is racism.
I’m certainly not buying this mind-reading act, where people who are ignorant of the definition of the word “thug” are now demanding that the people who are aware of the meaning of the word “thug” must side with the ignorant, or risk being called a racist.
And all you have to do to figure it out is to hear how the term is being used, which he provided examples of.
Not that we’re actually having anything resembling a debate here. Do you see anyone presenting a counterargument? This is just people sharing what they think about the subject, with some people expressing incredulity at the other side, like in the post you reference and the OP.
Yeah, except you have to account for all the times thug is used without any racial connotation. If somebody were to use the word “idiot” out of racial animus, it doesn’t automatically become an epithet.
Maybe some people use it as a slur. But that doesn’t mean it is solely a slur.
Right. I don’t think any particular group gets to decide, for all of us, that a word is offensive to them without a history which justifies the offense. I can name plenty of words for which that history exists, and I accept that we shouldn’t use those words. I’m still not getting the proof of said history here. The best evidence that has been offered up is that some youth culture uses thug to refer to a certain socioeconomic + racial combination, but it sounds like within that youth culture it isn’t even a slur, but rather an identifier, and possibly even a somewhat positive one. Again, like the way the word nigger is used by the black community as a term of endearment. I accept that that word is off-limits for me because of its dark history. I don’t accept that about thug.
How many complaints do we need to declare a word offensive? If I can find a few folks to complain that hooligan is offensive to the Irish, are we now in such a sensitive world that any pejorative can be killed off by any scurrilous complaint?
Show me the proof that thug has this a. history and b. widespread usage as a slur (NOT self-applied descriptor)