That’s crazy. Using words properly is perfectly acceptable. Webster’s is a more authoritative resource on language than random peoples opinions.
With regards to rap music there are differences in style between Tupac and Easy-E who are known as “gangsta” rap and someone like Will Smith while black and a hip hop artist would never be considered a “thug.” Do you listen to any rap music? Any gangsta rap?
We obviously disagree on what is “properly” in this case. I think the meaning is changing, in terms of usage, rather fast.
Referring to people burning and looting a city as thugs is as proper as it gets. President Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer. I’m sure he knows the language.
At one time I’m sure that was true. I’m not so sure it’s true in present usage.
I was explaining the nature of the “risk” you asked about. It seems you were instead being disingenuous with your question, and now I’m sorry I answered it.
I have expressed no outrage, faux or otherwise, and I would very much appreciate your not implying intellectual dishonesty or inconsistency on my part when you have precisely zero basis for doing so.
Yes, but it’s very unlikely, especially at a frat party. What I think is that it will become more likely in the future as young white people grow up fully engrossed in hiphop and are comfortable with it, as is already happening. Frats are about as racially segregated as anything in our society though, so a fat isn’t likely to be at the leading edge.
He did. And then he stood by it. That was April. Has the language changed since then?
Culture is not strictly black and white (in both senses of the term).
No. Didn’t say so. Just said they would have gotten away with such a party.
Stubborn? Maybe. Head in the sand? No. I’m the only one without my head in the sand. I don’t just blindly do what I’m told. I don’t let racists define what I say or do.
Yes I do.
The question, which is implicit in the OP, is what is racist and what isn’t, and who gets to decide.
The problem in our discussion is the idea that everyone can agree that something is racist, or not. I believe reasonable people can disagree about that. I don’t believe that the aggrieved party (black people in this case) have the absolute right to declare what is racist and what is not. Nor do those standards never change (see the word “thug”).
But most important, I believe that the attitude that there can be no disagreement about any of this (and the readiness of some to pounce on anyone who dares to disagree) leads to a lack of dialogue, and a lack of interaction, that only makes race relations worse.
You are stubbornly insisting on your right to hurt people who do not deserve to be hurt.
What starts as plausibly innocent often comes to show itself to be something else.
I’m not saying that at all.
I’m saying that I deserve presumption of innocence if I do hurt someone. And the right to dispute whether I did hurt them, or to explain that I didn’t intend to hurt them.
If those rights didn’t exist, we’d live in a world in which anyone could claim they were hurt by someone else by anything at all and the person who did the hurting would be totally responsible. So if someone decided they were offended by the word “chair,” and I said “chair,” it would be my fault and I’d have to stop using the word. And then, of course, I’d just stop talking in front of that person at all, and that’s not going to help anything.
Now, if that person has a good argument for why a word or action hurts them, I’ll listen - I have an obligation to listen. And if they have a good point, I’ll stop. Both parties have a right to speak and make their point and come to agreement, or not.
Not sure what you mean by that.
And the rest of society gets to decide what they think you are and to treat you accordingly.
Except that he knows black people. They’re even in his family!
I’ll give lance strongarm the benefit of the doubt here.
I think it’s only fair to give someone a presumption of innocence at first. Not endlessly; not in repeating the same kind of thing after you’ve been schooled.
To the second part, I don’t see how you can dispute whether you hurt someone. By definition, they have information about this that you don’t have. It is reasonable to (again, at first) seek explanation…
…in conjunction with your apology, of the third part. Of course, if you genuinely didn’t know and didn’t mean to, an apology given and an explanation received is all fair and proper, and should clear the field. And now you know.
Cool, except I still object to the idea that you can walk in and “school” someone about everything. Some things, sure - like if you teach a non-American English speaker not to use certain words that are undeniably slurs - but we can still disagree about others.
I can dispute whether someone can insist that they can tell me not to hurt them just because they are hurt by something. See my “chair” example. You can’t claim the right to make everyone stop saying “chair” around you because the word hurts you.
Of course. If I am convinced I did wrong, I’ll gladly apologize. Sometimes offense involves doing something hurtful without intent and the result is to be informed, then apologize, then that’s that. But sometimes not. The offended party is not automatically 100% authoritative. It’s a bit like a car accident - I might admit fault and apologize, but I might insist I did nothing wrong.
Well, yeah, of course. That’s true of everything, isn’t it?
Doesn’t make it right. History is full of people who were treated unfairly by the rest of society. Homosexuals come to mind.
You’re not defending any admirable principle.
Using words like “thug” with disregard to the social context and the feelings of the people around you is now equivalent to your sexual preferences?
Language is not a one-way street. Just like racism, it’s not just dependent on what is in the head of the speaker. It is also dependent what is perceived by listeners.
And language is a very powerful tool for social oppression. Our entire cultural history is evidence of that.
There is this article from a black man who was a cop and found that racism was pervasive in police culture, including
And there’s also this article — https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/18/call-the-charleston-church-shooting-what-it-is-terrorism/ — which asks “Shooters of color are called ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs.’ Why are white shooters called ‘mentally ill’?”
This is just one bit of evidence of the way usage of the word “thug” is trending. To ignore it with “Well I don’t mean it when I say it” doesn’t cut it. Just like you say we can’t read your mind and know whether you are in your heart a racist, we can’t read your mind and know whether whether you mean to use a word in a racist way.
Language is a co-operative exercise. You don’t just get to decide what you mean unilaterally. That’s not how language works. And meanings and connotations change over time.
There’s nothing virtuous about someone continuing to use any word that has taken on offensive connotations—whether it’s “nigger” or “boy” or “jewboy” or “queer” or “midget” or “oriental” or “redneck” or whatever—when it has been made clear to you that it is hurtful to people in society.
I have had to face those questions myself. At first I was annoyed that I couldn’t refer to East Asian people as “oriental,” because it seemed like an innocent and useful word. I was annoyed that I couldn’t use “retard” as an insult for a stupid or contemptible person—it feels satisfying to say in a way that other insults don’t.
But over time, hearing more opinions from people who are affected by these words, I have to take them into account when deciding whether to use them because I cannot deny that I am likely to be hurting someone or perpetuating a culture that disadvantages them unfairly.
And, as an aside, yes, I believe that in insisting on using the word “thug,” Obama was perpetuating harmful stereotypes, in the same way that I believe that Chris Rock’s “there are black people and there are niggers” perpetuates harmful stereotypes. They are both people I admire for certain things, but I believe those particular decisions of theirs are wrong.
The majority of Juggalos are not violent criminals. The whole crowd of them, however, is about as far away from “class” and “decent people” as one can possibly get.
Has the language changed since then? Well, maybe. Has it changed back?
The idea that we can declare that words were once perfectly okay for the President of the U.S. to use, and then are vicious racial slurs a few months later, is the problem. It’s not so simple. Language is fluid and complicated.
The fact that you have to ask this question is part of my point. If it were so simple. we should be able to declare that thug officially became racist, and exactly when.