Nett, I apologize for putting words in your mouth, the dismissive tone of this being an issue is extremely disrespectful. Languages has changed over time and recently has been changing. Literally just got added to the dictionary to mean figuratively. Fap was just added in June along with twerk. Are you saying that language can't change? How long did it take for the definition of the n-word to go from simply ignorant to racial slur toward's black people? How did it get there? Who had to say it was true? I can ask the same thing about the f-word, when did it go from bundle of sticks to slurring homosexuals? Who has the control over the language? What un-entitled person has the authority to set a definition in stone so it became the leading definition? Who had to say twerk for it to get added to the Oxford English Dictionary? When does it stop being on me? When do you acknowledge the change? All of the above is moot, because language is being coded, the definitions of coded aren't written down because that'll defeat the purpose like writing the ATM code on the debit card it's for. It defeats the point. We also know what "inner-city youth" and "urban youth" means, even though those definitions aren't in the dictionary. This is going to be volatile, but I'm going to post it anyway. A white woman named Robin DiAngelo, PhD. wrote an academic article on what is called "White Fragility" I think conversation of the word "thug" now be racially charged is a trigger for this behavior. Here is the opening story. Yeah, no problem here. Moving on!
Hold on, I just bit on the strawman. I'm not touching my last post, because it's perfect. There isn't a small group of people (cough minorities cough) trying to change the definition of thug. It is the fact we're noticing that there are a large group of people (guess) using "thug" about a specific group in the media and on social of people in a way that tends to denote hidden meaning. Black people aren't trying to use the word "thug" to secretly mean the N-word, it's everyone else doing it and socially aware people are like "Hey, what the hell is going on here? Why we got a new word to call people N-words?" People aren't complaining about the word "honkey" or "ruffian" or "rascal" as racially coded words for a reason. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Denying so is detrimental to society.
So you're also guessing that it is the majority of people in the US who now view thug as a changed word. I don't keep up on culture all that much so let's say I take what you're saying as fact. I don't mean it as anything other than dumbass or asshole when I'm talking about rioters or looters who are damaging their own cities and stealing (two things that have no basis in what they are protesting). How many people does it take to make dumbass or asshole racist? Serious question. I'm not denying that some do mean thug as a "racial" term, even a large number. I would stop before majority. If it is true that because of a few; those of us who don't say thug as a thinly veiled N-word cannot use a word as it was intended then where do we stop? You may as well replace white fragility with "a whole lot of people that are tired of language being changed because the next person up has decided to be offended because they feel asshole is now somehow a reference to race. Again, I'm not saying that some don't use thug in a racist way but just because some people eat shit (two girls one cup) the majority of us won't view it as food.
Just because one group is part of a larger group, doesn't mean you can't still call the larger group by that label. It takes a special kind of person or group to feel victimized enough that they co-opt that label just for themselves, and claim proprietary ownership of it, basically telling the rest of the group to go fuck themselves, "this is ours now".
Well if you're using thug for anyone who acts like a hooligan or ruffian. Great. That's awesome. Call the people rioting on Baltimore the same as you call the Pumpkin fest rioters. It's the issue that group A does action X, gets called "misguided youth" and group B does action X, gets called "thugs". People can point out that disparity, stop and say "What is going on here, there is something to this, does it tie into this whole other things that's been any issue for going on 300 years? Yes/No/Maybe." The White Fragility article is extremely difficult to talk about unless you get 4-5 pages in, so I'm going to leave that there for people to read. It does address your statement though, because I cannot fathom the emotions felt reading an article like that being a part of the subject matter. That statement ignores history and falls right under the whole "Why do you keep hitting yourself?" statement posted earlier.
You mean the history where thug was a Hindi word that referred to groups of Indians that were thieves that were known to cut the heads off of their victims? That kind of history?
You're generally right in what you say here, but you should read the link I posted about Dog-Whistling, because that's what we're talking about. 'Thug' is not (yet) a racial slur like 'nigger'. To use Kampf's example, no one (who isn't probably full of shit) going to say you're racist if you state the fact that union protesters are/were often referred to as thugs. When we talk about thug as coded-language it means to a certain subset of racist people, thug = black person. For example, suppose you have a racist public official in 2015 and you want to connect with your fellow racist constituents over a piece of racist legislation - such as increased police scrutiny and harassment in minority communities. Now, since it's 2015 you can't say something like, "My proposal is to increase policing in minority neighborhoods in the hope that the increased scrutiny and harassment will make their lives more unpleasant for [reasons]." You'd be skewered by public opinion. So instead, you crouch it in terms like, "increased policing in 'high-crime areas'", where your follow racists - those to whom you're sending the message, understand that 'high-crime areas' means 'neighborhoods where people of color primarily live'. That's dog-whistling. This dog-whistling is currently going on with the word 'thug', and people are starting to catch on to it and call it out for what it is. Also, this is a way in which words change meanings over time, which is what Parker was talking about above.
I understand that. Things, like the meanings or associations of words, only change over time if you let them. You can push back on that, and not accept it. That should be discussed as much as anything; don't let them co-opt terms for their own benefit, which is what I'm doing. I refuse to accept their attempt to pivot the word "thug" into some bullshit term.
edit: what Trakiel said. I guess Im one of the few that sides with Parker here. I don't have any tl:dr summaries just personal experience. From what I've seen, say on facebook or when people spout off in public about racial issues. The people I see using it are unequivocally using it as a code word. It's all context and it's really not hard to see through the rest of their statements that they'd drop an Nbomb if they could get away with it. Not all people are using it in this way, and if you truly don't, are you really saying other people DON'T use it as a code word for nigger? As for black people co opting thug and nigger, their whole life situation and culture is so wildly different than mine I don't begrudge them how they've use the words. I don't think the way they use the word thug as a term of endearment for a successful criminal lifestyle speaks well on them but different cultures are weird in a lot of different ways. The LGTBGFBDSM community LOVES to twist words all over the place. It almost seems like flat out denial, a kid sticking his fingers in his ears. I also don't buy the whole using the word "fag" or "retard" as kids wasn't disparaging to those groups because of... I don't know why really, I guess kids are dumb and don't know any better? (seriously I never got the argument) We had that discussion here and Ive heard it on tv and podcasts. It's bullshit. We called each other retards because we wanted to compare our idiot friends to the drooling, screaming, chest thumping, retards that were mandated to be in our classes to integrate them. We knew what we were doing in first fucking grade. As for "gay" while it was used a lot more indirectly, at some point kids heard it for the first time from adults and there was no confusing. It was referring to gays disparagingly, no matter what form it eventually took in youth culture.
That's what they're trying to do with the word "bossy". They're not just trying to turn it into an insult, but ban people from outright SAYING it. And thankfully, people are pushing back with "You know what? No. The word ISN'T offensive so go fuck yourself." ...as they should be.
It ONLY becomes offensive when men are only using it on women who assert authority and execute their managerial duties and is never used for men. Because the actual desire is to say bitchy, but they can't say that. Now if everyone is calling everyone bossy, then we're fine. Men don't get called bitchy or bossy. Bitchy and bossy are used interchangeably. This isn't a PC issue, it's people saying "We cracked the bullshit code, stop talking shit." The response to that is "What? There is no code! Why are you getting offended at words? Nothing to see here!" "We have a problem here in America, there is a threat coming from areas of extreme hockey enjoyment. We need to be aware of these threats that can come suddenly from above us. The issue with those people o colder origins can ruin the future of our children." - Who is being talked about in the above paragraph? It's not Alaskan's or Yeti. See how that is coded?
The problem is that people are attacking the word, not the context. You can't come out and say "THUG = NIGGER", you have to say "Hey, don't use thug in that context".
If I ever see a non-black person use thug in non n-word context, I'll give them a dollar. NFL is starting back up, it creates 100s of examples of this. Stanford graduate Richard Sherman was called a thug on social media and actual media for yelling loudly around a white reporter, not even facing her. His behavior was nowhere close reflective of the Oxford English Dictionary definition. What were they getting at? He was speaking to a reporter that asked him a stupid question. He wasn't robbing anyone or physically threatening anyone. Why was thug used?
Again, context. Just because all you see is it used as a racial slur, doesn't mean that's what it is. We just had a skater gang beat the fuck out of a homeless dude here last weekend, and they were called thugs in the local media. White, urban fucktards, all of them... not a black one around. Hell, not even an Indian. Straight up white boys... and they were called thugs, because that's what they were, and are. So what... am I now supposed to consider that racist? Are we allowed to call white guys thugs too? Or only? I'm sorry, the rules seem to be a bit murky in this case... And likewise, if I ever see a black dude not scream, "help, I'm being repressed!", regardless of whether or not it's inherent in the system, I'll give you $10 dollars.
I really hope this doesn't get misinterpreted, or seem overly defensive. Not my intention at all, but I really don't want to tip toe around too much, even if this is a very sensitive topic. If they're so socially aware why don't they remember all the white protesters who were called thugs? More often than not just for protesting, or having a different opinion. I can post an infinite number of examples(I did give a couple earlier), but do I really need to? Much of this was fairly recent. Frankly, if you pay any attention to the news you can remember this happening several times. It pretty much happens whenever any people protest on a large scale, regardless of race. The thing is, the stuff I've seen in articles on news sites and elsewhere is people just blanketing the entire word, trying to get it out of use, and worst of all burying any and all opposition under racism. This often happens without providing anything even resembling a counterargument to their allegedly racist opposition. Moving beyond 'thug' take this quote Parker posted: I too can craft a vague accusatory argument as to why someone feels the way they do about a position. I can label their behavior with any subjective interpretation I choose. However, when you're telling someone else why they feel a certain way, and you're obviously motivated by a stance that frequently leads to bias - well, there's a pretty good chance you're full of shit. I don't like to be told that the reason I believe something is because I'm a flagrant racist. OR I'm an incognito racist. OR I'm racist without realizing I'm racist. OR I'm in denial. OR I'm just too insulated and ignorant. OR I'm speaking based on my cognitive conflict and sub-concious guilt. And so on. That's as best as I can articulate my issue with all of this. I don't mind hearing about someone's problems. Whether it's racism, sexism, psycho leprechauns - whatever. Rather, I sincerely want to hear about them if you have a legitimate beef. But don't tell me why I believe what I believe. Don't try to cover what I actually say in secret racism. Do not fucking tell me the reason I believe something is because of my internal conflict, anger, or denial as if you know me better than I know me, and moreover as if you're somehow fully and comprehensively aware of the totality of my life's experiences. It pisses me off, and for good reason. Much worse, it inhibits change that really could be good because you've spent so much more time on the snarky condescending crap than the actual problem you've chased too many people away. So take that however you will. I don't like being talked down to and being told by someone else how I think and why I think the way I do, much less by someone who barely knows me.
Parker, I was locked up with a bunch of thugs when I was in prison. And I'm talking thugs of all races (well, the big three for Texas: White/Hispanic/Black). Hell, I can think of a few guys right off the top of my head (all hispanic/latino/whatever term you want to use) who had "THUG LIFE" tattooed somewhere on their body. I was taught that "thug" means a low-level, violent criminal. I live in a part of Texas that is VERY predominantly hispanic/latino, and people use the term "thug" when talking about gang members and criminals in general. There are no black people to amount to anything down here. Check out that demographic map someone posted a few days ago. So how are you going to pay me that dollar? EDIT: If I get some of my non-black friends to post similar arguments on here, will you pay them, as well?
Wasn't going to chime in until Dixie said something smart and I realized that if a toddler could run up that hill then I could too. I just don't get why people associate the word "thug" to mean anything other than a piece of shit, criminal, violent or vandalizing person. Someone who society would prefer behind bars as opposed to outside of them. I'm sure there are other descriptions too, but yall understand the type person I'm getting at. And anyone who proudly adopts the "thug" label as a descriptor of themselves is basically saying "yeah, I'm an asshole who does criminal things, and I have no desire to change my lifestyle." To me, anyone who argues that "thug" has anything to do with race is like that too drunk guy in the bar wanting to start fights with everyone because you looked at him the wrong way. Grow the fuck up. That piece of shit vandal in Vancouver who was caught trying to light a cop car on fire during the riots is a "thug" in the same way the people rioting in St Louis are "thugs" in the same way the fuckers who always tag construction site trailers around here are thugs. Jesus Christ people. This "catch the one with the racist take on 'thug' " game belongs in the Stupid Questions thread. Now someone please bring up something worth serious discussion.