I think it might be more like, if I’m describing a criminal who is black, and the word “thug” comes to mind, I might choose to use a different word because I don’t want to reinforce the association of that word with one race, in my own mind and usage. If I used it to describe a black person who made statements I disapproved of, or who was dressed in a particular way, it would almost certainly be a racist usage.
For me, avoiding the first one is a way of drawing a wider line around the latter usages, which I think is a good idea.
In addition, I care about people of color feeling oppressed. Even if I personally think the first usage is OK, in some technical denotative prescriptivist sense, I’d rather choose one of the plethora of other applicable words that don’t ring in the ears of people who are, in fact, oppressed.
We have A LOT of examples of this happening. Clearly we’re not the arbiters of the world here but I’m fighting this not because I feel the need to use the term, but because of what it would mean for society if this accusatory shit happens. You all are already stopping just short of calling me and others a racist asshole simply because I think this redefinition of the word is absurd.
I would have said “no” maybe 10 years ago now, but I’ve seen it used enough in reference to black males to know that in many cases, yes, “thug” is the new n-bomb.
The Republican Party isn’t racist now nor was it ever racist. That’s a lie from the left. It was originally formed to be the anti-slavery party.
Nowadays it’s mostly the ‘keep things the same’ party. There have been times in the past when it should have embraced changes faster (e.g. civil rights) but the motivator behind the slow movement was not racism but fear of change.
It’s a similar situation now with immigration. Racism is not the motivator driving the right’s desire to limit immigration; it’s fear of change. But calling the Right racist makes it easy to vilify their stance on immigration.
It’s not the case that statements can be neatly broken down into “racist” or “non-racist” binaries. In the case of Alice and Bob, where the race of the person is unknown, it could be argued that the widespread subconscious identification of “thug=black” might lead the listeners to assume that the thug in question was black, thus reinforcing their problematic racial stereotypes. It’s also possible that one of the people Alice is speaking to might find the term offensive.
I’m not sure why any particular demographic group needs to be treated specially. It’s a bit like that silly capitalization of black. It’s like places reserved for certain groups and not others. When society demands special privileges for a select group that’s bigotry. If we want to eliminate bigotry than eliminate bigotry in all forms and stop carving out special exemptions.
If a black man pushes an Asian to his death, it’s perfectly acceptable and accurate to label that as thuggish. If a white man pushes someone to his death, it’s equally acceptable and accurate to label that as thuggish. These silly euphemisms do nothing productive.
It’s at the point, for me personally, that labelling something racist or sexist is meaningless. It wasn’t always that way. I used to think that was a pretty serious accusation. Now, I perceive them as barely nothing more than rhetorical devices used to dishonestly inflame passions and that’s because of how often those terms have been dishonestly used.
And Richard Nixon inaugurated the Southern Strategy to capture all the disgruntled Democrats unhappy with that party’s move into civil rights. It worked, fantastically. The “Solid South,” named that because it voted overwhelmingly Democrat, now votes overwhelmingly Republican. It’s also now the home of black voter suppression.
The modern Republican Party is built on racism and is racist to the core. It has no principles, only hate. And there’s nothing it hates more than people whose skin tones are darker than pasty.
And, yes, it is a similar situation with immigration. Racist all the way down.
Deny it all you want. The Republican Party is good at denying reality; it works for them. Unfortunately, everybody else sees through the flimsy denials and calls them what they are.
The same. In my head, when I picture “Thug” I picture an ignorant, barrel-chest white man, “hired muscle”, with tats, a badly shaved head, poorly fit clothes, who grunts with his mouth open… and whose knuckles drag on the earth when he he walks.
I’m a little upset that the GOP agitator speakers ( aka FOX news ) have coopted it for their own racist purposes… and that I have to accept the definition which they have soley created for it and employ for that word.
Now I have to use phrases like “knuckle-draggers”, “mouth-breathers”, “brain-trust”, “varsity-jacket losers”, “skin-heads”, and “Steroid Cases” to describe the same muscle-bound mental-midget gangs of white felons.
The Republican Party was formed in basically “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation. The northern industrialists joined forces with the abolitionists to defeat the southern plantation owners. The important thing to note here is that roughly half of the Republican Party really didn’t give two hoots about slavery and the other half really didn’t give two hoots about protecting northern factories and businesses. But combined, they won the 1860 election.
I personally wouldn’t say that “It was originally formed to be the anti-slavery party” although it is fair to say that anti-slavery was a significant part of its formation.
But things have changed quite a bit since the mid 1800s.
Most significantly, many blacks started to become strongly disillusioned with their party, starting around the 1920s to 1930s, as the Republican Party refused to advance civil rights issues for blacks. The Democratic Party started to embrace civil rights for blacks, and there ended up being a huge shift in black voters, with many blacks jumping ship and becoming Democrats during the 40s and 50s. Democrats like Harry Truman continued to push for civil rights, causing more black voters to change parties until by the 1960s, most black voters were Democrat.
So while anti-slavery and rights for blacks might have been a significant factor in the formation of the Republican Party, that aspect of the party has been long gone for over half a century.
The pro-business and wealthy urban aspects of the party still remain to this day. This part of the party tends to lean towards the white and wealthy, as it always has.
I’m not sure why you see this as “very odd”. The word has taken on baggage due to its use as a racist slur against all young black men. Of course some subset of black men may sometimes exhibit actual thuggish behavior, but if you want to describe an instance of that, it behooves you to find alternative vocabulary if you want to avoid any misunderstanding. In fact, in the context you describe, it seems to me that it would be wise to avoid the term altogether unless it’s abundantly clear that you’re not talking about a black man.
Maybe Tiger Woods does actually love fried chicken and watermelon, but if you feel the urge to comment on that, it is surely wise to be aware of the the potential for misunderstanding, something that would not exist if you were commenting on Phil Mickelson’s culinary preferences.
Along with terms like moron, imbecile, and cretin,its use to describe people with mental disabilities is archaic and considered to be offensive
So those terms are offensive when used to describe people with mental disabilities. The whole issue with the word “retard” is that it’s considered offensive when used about anyone.
I also, well, don’t need to read some citation. I actually interact with people in these communities, so I have firsthand knowledge of what is and isn’t considered okay. I specifically picked out “moronic” from a list of alternatives that were said to not be offensive.
But, if things change, if people don’t like it, I will change, because, again, there’s no reason not to. I do not get the game of one-upmanship or fear of change that happens so often around these topics.