Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A thug means a violent lowlife who breaks the law and steals or assaults or robs people. I never knew it had any racial connotation and it doesn't. I called Mike Brown a thug and a goon, because, well, that's what he was. The Baltimore and Ferguson looters were goons and thugs. Race has nothing whatsoever to do with it, although some racists want to believe it does. Whites and Blacks and Asians and Hispanics can be goons and thugs. Its just stupid to say its racist.
BTW, Bill Oreilly was spot on last night. He slammed people left and right for stupidity over those riots.
I don't necessarily disagree with the OP, but when was the last time you heard a white person referred to as a thug? It's definitely used as a codeword, sometimes with malicious intent, sometimes not.
I have heard it many times......... I support unions........
We call the local petty criminals who have all the drug labs, thugs and they are almost all white. It's been several years since a black person was arrested for having a drug lab here.
Yes, I know I quoted you and I admitted as much. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that just because my post was in response to yours, does not mean I was specifically accusing you of that statement ? Can one not make generalizations when replying to another's post? Or must everything said in response be taken as being aimed directly at them?
So you are saying that I have not called everything racist? Because you haven't actually said that.
And your post actually looks quite contrary:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
That does not mean that anyone gets to dictate the context and proclaim changes to a words meaning in that context just because they want to.
Let me ask you this:
What is a socially acceptable word to describe the character of people who are engaging in looting, arson, destruction of property, endangering and assulting not only the police but fellow citizens....most of which are of the same race as the people doing it?
And why should any word that fits the definition of this behavior be deemed unacceptable based on nothing else but the race of the majority of the people who are currently engagingly in this conduct?
Calling everything racist is the distraction from reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
I'm saying that just because there may be some people who use it in that context, that does not change the meaning of the word for everyone who utters it in reference to whats going on in Baltimore, and that does not give anyone a copyright on all future uses and definitions of a word according to their race.
And what I don't understand is, why would anyone want to change the definition of a word to mean something racist when it doesn't mean that and never has? What is the point in bringing more words into the lexicon of racism?
So you think that my point was correct, but you want to be able to call Baltimore rioters thugs without seeming racist? Why not call them rioters. The point is to recognize how words are used, their context, and their shades of meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
That hardly amounts to pointless arguing.
I can only call them like I see them, and the character they are currently displaying is NOT GOOD, but one need not be a thug in his soul to be a thug at the moment.
Well one does not need to be a racist in his soul to say something racist at a moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
In a way, by the strict definition of the word? Yes.
But the target of their aggression was a tool of their oppression.
What the Hell did CVS or any of the other businesses do to the people who robbed, looted and burned them down?
The East India Company was a private company whose shares were owned by merchants and aristocrats. Its tea was dumped in the sea. It was not an agent of the Crown, and the Crown owned no shares in the East India Company. So I would say the parallel is much closer than you imagine. The East India Company simply imposed the legally required duty on tea--much like CVS imposing the legally-required sales tax on goods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Me? I'm nobody......except that I'm a member of civilized society and that society has agreed in it's laws that peaceful protests are the right of every American. But just as there are limitations on free speech, the line is drawn when your "protest" infringes on the life, liberty, or property of others......especially when those others had NOTHING to do with what you're supposedly protesting.
How are these "protesters" getting their point across by stealing hair extensions and bags of Dorito's?
This country has long responded to violent protest. More so than peaceful protest, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
People may feel justified to commit crimes in the name of their cause, but that does not make crimes against others who are innocent right and it certainly does not release them from the consequences of their actions.
Like the innocent East India Company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Do you think Jefferson would advocate unloading the physical brunt of your frustrations against those who are not only innocent of any transgressions against you but are actually members of your own community?
Not necessarily advocate, but understand. The letter I quoted was referencing Shays' Rebellion, which involved rioters engaging in violent actions across the U.S., with several deaths, dozens of wounded, property damage, and arrests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
The actions of the state were not the topic of the thread.
But I have made my feelings about the perils of big, all powerful government, the militarization of the police state and excess laws against victimless crimes readily known in many other threads, it's not my fault if you've never read them.
It is your fault if you look at these protesters and rioters and see "thugs."
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
That may or may not have the amount of validity you are placing on it, I don't know.
But regardless is does not justify the wanton destruction and theft of property and endangerment of lives being perpetrated.
Already addressed above.
Did you read the article? There are many others, as well. You can read about the young man who received a $6 million settlement in 2004 after Baltimore PD subjected him to a rough ride and he was paralyzed from the neck down. So I say again, who are you to judge the actions of protesters or rioters? Do you think you know more about criminal justice in Baltimore than they do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Rioters is technically an appropriate term for an unruly or even violent group.
But for most people it does not convey the criminal aspect of what was going on in Baltimore or Ferguson for that matter.
Using the terms protesters, demonstrators or looters are all appropriate for what the terms convey.
A group of rioters are comprised of people exhibiting thug like behavior, and that does not change based on their skin color.
Rioters is the precise term for people who are rioting. If you can't see how you and others have used the term 'thugs' in this discussion, then you have problems I can't solve for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinSonic
michael brown was a thug. these farm animals rioting in baltimore. thugs
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy
It is OK to call whites who act that way thugs. If they are black then they are "little angels", "turning their life around", and a "good kid". If you call them anything else then you are a "racist".
Some segments of America actually embraced the term a loooooooong time ago and it resonates among lots of races but it's heavily rooted in the rap scene.
I mean dang...if I had a dollar for every rap song with "thug" in it or every lame "thug life" tatoo I'd own my own island somewhere.
Heck, it was 2pac that popularized the phrase thug life.
So true. It was never racist until BLACK thugs adopted the word via rap and gang culture.
So now people think it's racist because it's used in rap music?? Black men also always rap about "b*tches and hoes" but I don't think "racism" when I hear either word.
The excuse I've heard is that it's "traditionally been associated with black men." Yet BLACK MEN are the ones who started this "tradition!" Sorry but you can't have it both ways.
When I hear "thug" i personally think of criminals of all colors. This PC language BS drives me crazy when there are way more important things going on.
And while we're at it, where is the outrage over the term "paddy wagon" then since it is rooted in the anti-Irish movement when they were the predominant "thugs" of the day? (I'm Irish and fine with that by the way)
And while we're at it, where is the outrage over the term "paddy wagon" then since it is rooted in the anti-Irish movement when they were the predominant "thugs" of the day? (I'm Irish and fine with that by the way)
I've been to Ireland, and there are definitely thugs there too, and they are the whitest folks I have seen. Most folks, there and here, are decent, law abiding folks, while a few thugs are associated with most of the violence and crime. Calling out thuggish behavior should not be subject to PC bs.
Rioters is the precise term for people who are rioting. If you can't see how you and others have used the term 'thugs' in this discussion, then you have problems I can't solve for you.
Of course rioters riot. non sequitur. That doesn't mean you can't describe who is rioting. i.e. Criminals, Thugs, Racists, etc etc etc. In fact it's expected.
Furthermore, in regards to "problems" this is clearly yours. You take offense at selection of words used by someone else. Hence the problem is owned by you. You compound that issue by now attempting to control the actions of others with commentary that seeks to burden them with responsibility that you have created.
Thug is not a racist term. Whether of not someone has incorrectly concluded that it is, is irrelevant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
