But Seriously...

Nett, I don't know how to say this, but you're in Canada. It's different up there. Not sure your exposure to diversity either, but from what you've said on this board it can't be much. Everything you said makes sense, only coming from a white dude who lives in a rural area and works in a field that doesn't feature a lot of black people. Unless you've lived in a diverse urban Amrican environment for an extended period of time I can't continue to consider your commentary. If that story happened in America, thug wouldn't be used. Most likely, misgided youths or some other euphemisms to make not look that bad. Good for Canada and good for you for using thug on everyone! I've always said Canadians were better than Americans. Congratulations! Your country is more culturally/socially advanced then ours, so sit back and open your eyes to learn about what's still going on down here!

1) KT, yeah it's a fucking bitch to learn about yourself growing up with a mindset that you had no control of and is hard to be aware of. Read the article I linked and not just the excerpt. Years of research done by multiple people went into that article. That stuff wasn't made up. There are plenty more like it. That stuff isn't written about Japanese in America for a reason. No one is writing this stuff about any other race in America for a reason. Smoke -> Fire. It was written by white people with doctorates, they all can't be full of shit. It sucks to hear you're not 100% in control of your life and there are outside factors, but they exist. 2) Vice didn't write that article I linked on the Pumpkin Riots for no reason, as white people don't often get called "thugs" in the news media as much as black people do for the exact same actions. Black people riot over injustice and police brutality = thugs. White people riot over pumpkins = misguided/immature youth. No problem here.

Dixie, I'm not sure if I understand your point, but we're not talking about the self identification. We're talking about the disproportionate use of the word for a specific group of people, by an outside group of people. Amplified by the media. Google Thug use in news. And or Richard Sherman Thug. Read what comes up.

You know what guys? I'm sorry. You're right, I'm wrong. Racism is over and no longer exists in America. Everything I could possibly bring up it's because of another reason and it had nothing to do with slavery, segregation, Jim Crow Laws, Roe vs. Wade, or any other systematic oppression of minorities in America. Sorry for making you think about it and making you possibly think about your life. Everything is fine all these issues are the sole problems of minorities who brought it upon themselves and not the fault of white people at all. The PC police should stop telling you that you have been doing fucked up shit all this time and are finally being told to knock it off. Sorry for finally addressing the big elephant in the room and suggesting your shit does in fact stink.

Sorry, this shit isn't going to stop. In America we're all trying to fucking breathe, the smoke is choking us all to death, yet you don't want to admit there is a fire. Sorry for pulling the fire alarm and waking you up.

I'm no longer going to waste my time here. Let's change the subject.

 

@Nettdata

As a fellow white guy who lives within a couple hours of you, I'm curious about your reaction to this "thug" topic. My initial impression was quite similar to yours: "ugh what word is off limits now thanks to whatever PC topic is trending this week..."

But shit, we're white Canadians living in areas with very few black people. Why would we not listen to a black man from Chicago telling us this is becoming a problem? This is sort of brought up in the "White Fragilty" chapter/article (which I only skimmed). Why are we so quick to assure a young black American that he's wrong about this, and why do we get angry when he argues about it?

Listen, I have no idea. Parker could be completely full of shit. I just feel a little silly telling Parker he's imagining this when he's the one being a black guy in America, and I'm up here in bumfuck British Columbia in a town called Horsefly.

You're older and smarter than me though, so I really am curious: Do you think you're in a position to tell Parker he's imagining this? What besides your personal use of the word, and local news stories calling white skaters thugs, makes you so sure this is a non-issue?

 

I only brought up self-identification to strengthen my point. The bottom line is that there are legions of Mexican-Americans who would describe criminals in their communities as "thugs," and none of the criminals in question are black/African-American.
Are you trying to say that only people in certain areas can use the word "thug?"

Fuck that.

Stop trying to steal words from the English vocabulary.

Are conceding defeat?
Because if you are, I want that dollar.

 

And if you google "ferguson thug" you get 755,000 results while "occupy wall street thug" nets 199,000. That's the disproportionate use of the word Parker was talking about.

Just because you don't get why people do it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. All those descriptors you listed probably equate to "minority" for racists in this country.

Using the word thug doesn't make you a racist. However, you should at least recognize that people who are racist are going to use that word when they want to be racist without getting called out for it. That's not too difficult of a concept.

Besides, for all of those things you listed, there are better words. If someone is a rioter, call them a rioter. If someone is a vandal, call them a vandal etc. Why feel the need to bring thug into it at all?

My theory is because people want the extra oomph of a word that does a better job of dismissing that person and their actions. It stands to reason that if you don't like minorities you will use the word against them. Hell, it even makes sense to use the word in reference to white people because it is then used to be extra demeaning. That is how the word has always been used in my part of the world.

I've had numerous conversations with my dad in regard to Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, Tamir Rice, et al. He is the guy who will drop an n-bomb if you signal that you too don't like black people deep down. Guess which word he uses in my presence? You guessed it. Thug.

 

If you compare the number of buildings burned and property stolen between those two events, I think you have to concede that "thug" was vastly overused to describe the Occupy protesters. They were, for the most part, peaceful and ineffective. The scale of violence and destruction between the two is worlds apart.

Don't take to mean that the tensions and frustrations that caused people to riot like they did in Ferguson aren't real. While I don't agree with their actions, they certainly had a lot more to be upset about than the OWS crowd.

 

Few points here that I think are relevant.

1) The Canada vs the US point is interesting. Yeah its not all sunshine and roses up north, but from my time in Toronto and Vancouver, there seemed to be a lot more racial harmony and less division than in the US. So that could be one thing. The same people who use "thug" pejoratively are the ones who I saw pulling their kids close when a black kid tried to ask them a question on the train. He was wearing a polo and a backpack and just wanted to know what stop Depaul's Loop campus was at downtown.

2) There seems to be 2 different arguments going around. One is that thug has become ONLY used for black people, and the other is that thug has become a code word for talking about black people in a negative fashion. I dont agree with the former, but agree that the latter is an issue. A less venomous but similar situation is looking at the buzzwords thrown around for different races of athletes. White players are gritty or cerebral, latinos are "fiery" and "passionate". Its bullshit codifying.

3) Tupac has been dead for 20 years. So anything surrounding him with a "thug" persona attached to it is a mystifying ideal thats very detached from what is currently happening. Tupac was also militant and probably would have gladly welcomed the current negative "thug" title cause it was part of his persona and way of enacting change. But to think glorifying Tupac's 20 year old legacy is meaning that there is an acceptance of the negative media usage of "thug" for the black community is as misguided as assuming every kid in a Che Guevara shirt is ok with communist-fueled terrorism.

 

Another dude gets killed by the cops and everyone is losing their shit because he had his hands up when he was shot.

That's what they're focusing on -- that he had his hands up as he was shot and killed.

However, since the incident happened literally minutes from where I live, the details that are coming out locally are completely different than the twitter-fight everyone is getting into nationally. Time to shed some light on the background, and what it's like when the media reports only part of the story for the sake of viewership.

- The dude had already fucked up his wife and kid. The ambulances were not called in for him "just in case;" they were there to take his beaten and bloodied wife and kid the ER fast. So by the time the cops arrived, it was already known that he was willing to use deadly force with his knife, because he had.

- The police tried, MULTIPLE TIMES, to subdue him through less than lethal means. This includes trying to taser him, which means getting within "lunging at you with a fucking knife" range. Which is exactly what he did to the cop who tried to taser him. He hit that cop with the butt of his knife for his troubles.

- He'd already done the "hands up" gesture several times before, only to continue on. Like "ok I give up now! Lol jk!!" When they shot him, he was doing it, but his previous behavior gave them no reasonable indication that he meant it.

- He tried to break into houses to get away from the cops. Again, while holding a fucking knife he had already showed his willingness to use.


Seriously, fuck the media, fuck that guy, and fuck his family and lawyers for crying to everyone instead of admitting that Uncle Flores was a criminal who got killed because he was being a thug. Yeah, I said it.

 

That's interesting. Is that just what people are saying, or is that the story being told by your local media?

 

Both. All of the details I have mentioned, have also been reported by a lot of the national media, but rarely all of those details at once (they kind of pick and choose), and the stuff about him charging an officer with a knife and fucking up his wife and kid are ALWAYS buried deep in the article near the bottom where you're just skimming at that point.

Just as an example, the CNN article I linked to covered whole part about the guy fucking up his wife and kid (we don't know if he stabbed them, but they were severely beaten to the extent that multiple ambulances were on scene), This is the entirety of what they said about that:

That article also covered how the cops tried to use less than lethal force on him (and even though they mention it on air, occasionally, and even then just as an aside that he struck an officer with his knife, it isn't covered in the main article). This is all they said, again, buried in the article:

It's literally sickening how this is being handled by the mainstream media. They bury all the details and/or word them in such a way that the reader thinks "oh no biggie, that's not part of the story." Then they claim they're not being biased because they're reporting both sides of the story.... Well, technically, yes, you are. But that's like a strip club promoting pictures of boobs and ass without showing they have dicks on the other side.

Know what the story is really about? A mother and her child got saved after being attacked by a violent criminal. The police showed incredible restraint in the face of being attacked with deadly force, before ultimately being forced by the criminal to use deadly force after all other options were exhausted.

 

CNN is actually doing it right, which is shocking. They're being vague because they haven't verified all the details yet, and that brief interview you linked didn't jump to any conclusions. When it's way too early for investigators to draw conclusions the public needs to wait it out and see. But such are the times we live in.

Of course in a country with over 16,000 homicides a year you can protest case by case stories indefinitely, and be right every day of the year.

 

As much as no one will really lament the loss of a cretin like that, there is one simple fact: the police are not executioners.

 

But when you're dealing with a person who has already committed (potentially) deadly injury to others, has displayed a willingness to use his weapon against you, you have utilized all less-than-lethal means to get him to submit to custody... I mean, what else is there left to do? I'm not saying this was his specific intent, because who could possibly know unless he left a note, but suicide by cop must be considered. Police have guns specifically for THESE types of scenarios.

And no, they couldn't have just shot him in the leg. They aren't trained for that, and for good reasons -- there is no guarantee a perp will go down even with multiple shots under ideal circumstances, hits to the extremities can be just as deadly if they hit arteries only it causes more pain and suffering, there is a much higher chance the cop will miss the target and hit innocent bystanders or the bullet will ricochet, and so in the heat of the moment center mass (the engine room) is trained to be targeted.

 

That's the job. I'm not getting into the argument again. That is the job they signed up for and for which they trained. I do sympathize, make no excuses for, the tribulations that come with their chosen duty. But the job is not a shiny badge, uniform, or the benefits of fraternity. It is to serve the law and the public's interests in sometimes unsavory, violent circumstances. Lethal force is the last regrettable option when presented with equally lethal force. Not the first or second, especially with more than one officer present.

There are so many credible instances of over-use of force and authority that valid instances of self defense are now called into question. That is a disturbing precedent. To quote someone earlier who uttered this phrase at me when the shoe was on the other foot, "Wait to see what the third party investigation yields." Again, nobody is going to miss this guy. But it's a 24 hour news cycle and for some reason people still won't bother to read alternative sources rather than watch some pinhead vomit on screen.

Just for giggles, here is a case of a guy hitching his boat trailer up, then has a cop pull a gun on him on his own property for filming the cop with a cellphone.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...d-on-Paid-Administrative-Leave-320989391.html

 

Relevant and amusing…

 

Dude has a couple funny lines, but he's basically saying there is no problem and that police treat everyone the same. That's a pretty tired stance to have, in my opinion. Yes the media takes things too far sometimes, yes some black people deserve to be arrested, yes white privilege doesn't mean life is one big MDMA trip where you're allowed to do anything you want all the time... But to say that this entire issue boils down to black people not doing a good enough job of listening to the police is just silly.

That opinion is on the opposite end of the spectrum from "the police/society are 100% to blame for everything, and all changes that need to be made are external to the black community." As usual, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. From where I'm sitting (observing from the outside), it looks like change needs to happen from within, as well as from outside, the black community. I thought "The Blacker the Berry" off of Kendrick Lamar's last album was pretty fascinating, and the last verse addresses that idea:

It's funny how Zulu and Xhosa might go to war
Two tribal armies that want to build and destroy
Remind me of these Compton Crip gangs that live next door
Beefin' with Pirus, only death settle the score
So don't matter how much I say I like to preach with the Panthers
Or tell Georgia State "Marcus Garvey got all the answers"
Or try to celebrate February like it's my B-Day
Or eat watermelon, chicken, and Kool-Aid on weekdays
Or jump high enough to get Michael Jordan endorsements
Or watch BET cause urban support is important
So why did I weep when Trayvon Martin was in the street when gang banging make me kill a nigga blacker than me?
Hypocrite!

 

So this is happening in D.C. at this moment. One side is waving Confederate flags while the other side burns them.

 

I agree that it's wrong to simplify the problems like that, but why is bringing this up so taboo some people? I just don't see what exactly people are trying to accomplish with constant guilt tripping and cramming every problem 100% into racism. Aside from the fact that this also fails from being overly simplistic and leads to a lot of baseless accusations, it's often directed at people who I think even the most ardent SJWs would agree aren't the crux of the problem, even if you want to bury the entire issue under racism.

The other thing is when something community specific is brought up people lose their fucking shit, and overreact with statements like "Apparently being black means you're held to impossible alternate standard now???? More racism!" I don't know man, that's a pretty fucking lazy explanation isn't it?

If you want to complain about the problems of racism, you don't necessarily need to bring up non-racism problems at the same time always, but they should at least be addressed somewhere in the sphere, right? That's not to say that they aren't, but it seems to be a disproportionately small percentage, and often gets lambasted in a knee jerk overreaction.

You would think at some point the people that are so serious about addressing this stuff might realize that the strategy of white shaming (that's not what they would ever call it, but it often is just that) and pretending you, the allegedly oppressed fit into any of their shoes, but they could NEVER conceivably understand anything about you, all the while either denying other sources of the problem or not wanting to talk about them - you would think more people would realize this strategy isn't a good one. 300 years of slavery doesn't explain everything. Even when it does explain part of a problem it's often not realistic to say how much or how little, nor is focus on that necessarily conducive to solving the problem.

Earlier in the thread I tried to explain to Parker the many reasons I find the accusatory blanket assumptions stance so terribly misguided and annoying, but apparently a lot of people really don't understand why it often backfires. I think it's partly people think they came up with something really clever, when they didn't, and they're oblivious to what that shit actually sounds like sometimes. The best thing I can say other than what I already did is imagine me making a bunch of blanket, accusatory, oddly specific accusations about black Americans that have such vague premises and such specific conclusions. Not only in general, but I can apply this to every black person I ever meet who lives in North America. I also don't have to listen to any argument anyone makes whatsoever, and it's perfectly acceptable to maximize condescension and claim they're lacking in several areas of critical thinking. Better yet my theory, no wait..not theory...my 'social truth' explains everything about thousands of apparent injustices. Think for a second how fucking absurd and aggravating that would be, and then maybe you'll see where I'm coming from.

Yes, I know there is white people who more or less do what I just said, and I'm not saying they don't suck. I'm just saying they aren't the only ones who suck.