I always thought of Sluggo as being a young Thug.
I think of that group more like the “thugs” who stormed and looted Jewish businesses in 1938 Nazi Germany. “Brown shits”.
Where did I mention political orientation? Please leave the poor straw person alone.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood. What immutable factors are being using to segregate colleges and workplaces these days, then?
Race for one.
I could imagine using a descriptive term to describe how someone LOOKS, or for how someone ACTS. I’m wondering if the same word might be OK for one, but not the other.
If I say someone LOOKS like a thug - I dunno, I could imagine I might more commonly these days think of such usage WRT urban blacks as opposed to white kneebreakers. And I think that sort of characterization is likely not to my credit, and I should reconsider it. But if someone is engaging in thuggish behavior - looting, violent insurrection, intimidation, perhaps saying that person is ACTING like a thug is more appropriate - whatever their color.
Overthinking things (as is my wont) I extended my thinking to other descriptors. Such as slob. If I forget to change out of my gardening clothes before going to the store, my wife might say I look like a slob. But that might not really indicate that she thinks I AM a slob.
So - to what extent ought we make ANY judgements based on peoples’ appearances? Actions? I suspect some of you will say none - but I suspect I will believe that that position is inconsistent with human behavior and biology.
I find thug and gangsta to be curious terms. Some rappers adopted them to describe a style. If I see someone present themselves in a way that seems to imitate that style, it seems curious that there might be any question about my using an accurate descriptive term. I imagine ANY term I might use to describe someone who dresses in a certain style I perceive (in my ignorance) common of certain pop culture figures - urban, street, hiphop - might be subject to criticism as racist.
Yeah, anyone can dress/act/present themselves pretty much however they wish. But other people (thanks for the permission!) who see/meet them can form whatever judgments they wish.
Oh, that’s right, we are oppressing the poor white people by making them share their freedoms with minorities because freedom is like candy, if you give some to someone else there’s less for you. And of course, no one in world history has ever been silenced and oppressed more than that multi-millionaire real estate mogul who got to be leader of the free world for four years.
I have no idea what that’s in response to. How does that address the woke left’s demand for segregation?
Yes, well said. And – to be clear – many words have undergone shifts in meaning and connotations in my lifetime. Some, if not many, I did have to be made aware of and had to incorporate the new information in a manner suitable to my personal ethics. “Thug” just happens to be a word I’ve observed in my environment and sensed a gradual change in connotation, with more loaded subtexts to its use. I did not know whether this was a personal observation, a localized phenomenon, or something more widespread, but it was enough that I distanced myself from using that word in most situations.
Ahh, going with the Equivocation Fallacy I see.
Well played sir, well played indeed!
The reality is that the threshold for a Black person to get labelled a thug is different than it for a White person.
So when I hear someone call a Black person a thug I have no idea where that someone’s threshold is. Maybe it’s because the Black person is wearing clothes they disapprove of. Maybe it’s because they are listening to music too loud. Maybe it’s because they are mugging someone. Without further context I don’t know, but I do know that in this culture, the term thug is misapplied to Black people much more frequently than White people so I will take that into account.
This is why the term thug is racially charged.
The actual “left” or the right’s caricature of the left?
Well said.
Surely, these aren’t all canceled as sources of information.
@octopus, I have to give you credit for one thing. Your continued defense of all that is wrong in our society does more to show the need for change than all our arguments against you put together.
Opposition to segregation and treating individuals as individuals and not as a collective with intrinsic traits based on immutable characteristics is wrong? Pro liberty is wrong? Well, I am happy to be wrong.
I was in college from 1979 to 1983. We had these exact same “controversies.” Why do we need a campus organization just for Black students? Or LGBTQ students? How is that inclusive? The discussions were valuable and we all learned something. The world didn’t end and this “segregation” wasn’t a big deal. I put it in quotes because it’s a whole different thing from the pre-civil rights era segregation. The Atlantic article you linked to is quite good at describing what’s going on and why.
And having a safe space on campus to come together with people from similar backgrounds who may have experienced similar racism or microaggressions could provide the type of supportive environment these students need to graduate, particularly if they feel silenced or not validated elsewhere on campus. “It is not unrealistic, not alarmist” to suggest that some students are afraid of traditional college dorm living, and feeling physically and emotionally safe is an important part of academic success, McMillan Cottom said. A black student isn’t going to be able to focus on calculus if he thinks his roommate is a racist. A gay student isn’t going to feel safe if she thinks her roommate is a bigot. As Eddie Comeaux, an associate professor of higher education at the University of California-Riverside’s Graduate School of Education said, “If students feel like they have a space for learning and peers around them they can open up to and exchange and engage in ideas with … certainly there’s something positive to that.”
We’re happy you’re wrong, too.
It is a big deal. Handwaving away segregation because it panders to a group you align with does not make segregation moral. This thread is a specific example of a larger problem which is the contradiction in ideology mainly held by the left that no longer can reconcile demands that are racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted and the desire for equality. That’s why language is changing. It’s no longer equality it’s equity. And to achieve that we have to have sets of different criteria, benefits and penalties based solely on skin color or claimed skin color, ancestry, sexual orientation etc.
Would you be in favor of a white-male only dorm at a HBCU? The idea strikes me as ridiculous. But that’s beside the point, public and institutions open public should not be in the business of discrimination.
And selectively quoted ad-hominems is the way to prove it!