If one calls someone acting like a goon a thug it doesn’t make a bit of difference if that person being called a thug is white, green, black, or any other color of the rainbow.
Our environment has a lot to do with the way we perceive things. For a white person living in Idaho, it seems nonsensical and, for someone in a similar environment, it is. I gave the perception of Black people living in an urban environment, which is entirely different. For them, it is a racial slur because the perception of too many white people is that Blacks, by nature, ARE “thugs”.
If you want to argue that assertion, just look at how police react differently to whites as opposed to Blacks. If Kyle Rittenhouse were Black, do you think he would have been taken alive? And on top of that, this headline: “A judge in Kenosha, Wis. will not raise bail or issue an arrest warrant for Kyle Rittenhouse, who accused of killing two people at protests, after he violated the terms of his bond agreement.” Bail?! REALLY?!
If you don’t think that’s true, then you are not accepting reality, and we have no ground for discussion.
Yes, this perception is racist. That does not make the term racist. If we outlaw the use of the term “thug” people will simply start saying “criminals” with a certain inflection to imply the same thing, and then we start this whole fiasco all over again.
This is factually incorrect. It will be perceived differently depending on who it is applied to. That constitutes a “difference.”
It’s OK to refer to kids with slicked back hair and wearing leather jackets in the fifties as “greasers.” It is not OK to refer to Mexicans as such.
I’m an American who follows English soccer, and I agree that the word seems to have a very soccer-specific connotation in British English, but not in American English.
As people have said above, you are free to use whatever terms you want. But it’s a fact that if you do so in reference to Blacks you will be perceived as racist. If that doesn’t matter to you, knock yourself out.
Perception is reality with regards to racism. Your obstinate denial of reality doesn’t change it in the least. The term has taken on racist overtones.
And this shows that you are totally outside any rational discussion of language. Yes, people most certainly have to be careful in how they use those terms. People are called out today in real life for their careless, i.e. racist, use of those terms. Just because some words can be used neutrally doesn’t preclude them from being used pejoratively and in racist contexts.
You can stand in the way of language and yell stop at changes, but you’ll get the same effect by yelling at your wall.
Oh, come on. Literally just Google the word. The very first thing you’ll see is a dictionary definition listing seven synonyms. If you click to expand it you get fourteen more. Personally, I like “myrmidon”.
It’s a big language. We are in no danger of running out of words.
No one is outlawing any words, you can climb down from your cross.
You might want to ask Sergio Garcia whether it would be a good idea to be careful how you referred to fried chicken. He got a lot of flak for saying he would serve it to Tiger Woods if he came to dinner.
It’s irrelevant whether this is “fair” or not. Garcia wasn’t intending to be insulting. What matters is how the remarks will be perceived.
How do you know that?
In any case, that’s irrelevant. There’s no such rule of racist terms. Words become racist when people start using them in a racist manner.
And certainly terms that start out as euphemisms routinely become offensive as people use them in an offensive manner. Look at a word like “retarded.” It was originally a clinical term intended to avoid using terms that had become disparaging. And now it has itself become disparaging because of the way people used it.
Cite?
Which white people? Where are you getting your information? It sounds like you are stereotyping white people as being racist. In my personal experience the percentage of racist white people where I live is low.
Maybe 5%-10%? Nowhere near the majority. I’d prefer the percentage was 0% but if 90% are not racist I think we may be pushing the racism agenda too hard. We’ve got lots of other things to worry about in this country right now.
I think it’s always worth considering the language we use based on the way our likely, intended, or perceived audience is likely to receive it.
As an example: I don’t remember a rash of senseless attacks on people from the hamlet of Lyme, Connecticut after Lyme Disease was named.
But we currently see what’s happening (almost surely) as a direct result of the incessant, pejorative use of terms like “China Virus” and “Kung Flu.”
I have a reasonable vocabulary. Particularly when things are superheated on one cultural issue or another, I usually have a far less incendiary word available to me, and at little/no cost.
Recently encountered that word reading Troilus and Cressida (and had to look it up). Love the suggestion - think I’ll start using it. Folk will likely assume I’m accusing others of having fish-tails! 
You’re living in a delusion if you think the majority of people aren’t affected by societal and institutional racism.
We live in a fundamentally racist society. Every interaction, every decision, every expression that happens is bathed in a racist context.
Stop trying to identify good and bad (racist and non-racist) people, especially white people. It will get you nowhere.
Out race problem is less about racist individuals than it is about a racist society.
When I was a graduate student, I was reading a document written in the 19th century by a man who was castigating women for speaking before a “promiscuous” audience. “Ooo la la!” I thought to myself but from the context I knew he didn’t mean what I thought he meant. Nope, he was just referring to an audience comprised of both men and women. Scandalous I know.
I’m not a languageologist. But the way we use words and phrases certainly changes from time to time. If I told a young woman back in 1992 that Frank was a nice guy she’d probably interpret it as me meaning he’s an agreeable person. If I told a young lady in 2021 that Frank was a nice guy she might interpret that as him being a jerk who feels as though he’s entitled to romance. It’s not farfetched to me that thug might have some racial connotations it didn’t have in 1985.
Well, I should have said it doesn’t make a difference to me. I think it’s ludicrous that language and ultimately thought is under attack the way it is and if a word fits a situation I will use it. Regardless of the word.
And I disagree with your assertion that what I said is factually incorrect. Note that I said if someone is acting as a goon. People shouldn’t, though they are obviously free and in some cases encouraged to do so, call others derogatory names. However, if you fit the criteria for a derogatory name it is not intrinsically ‘racist’ to be labeled as such.
It used to be that there was a broad understanding of the necessity of upholding principles of human liberty.
It also used to be (to a far greater extent than it still is) that marginalized people were so powerless that it mattered not one whit the invectives that were hurled at them by insensitive, heartless, and hate-filled people.
Some are trying to relegate that dynamic to the dustbin of history.
Quite often, the only thing somebody needs before they can get up is that knee off their neck.
Like I said, if you don’t care about how people perceive you you can use any language you want.
When was that, exactly? In the 1950s when people felt freer to toss around derogatory names?
If you believe this, then how do you explain the Republican Party?