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. I did not, and do not, "call everything racist." That would be a strawman.
B. You are the one attempting to dictate context by using absolutes, engaging in unwarranted argument, trying to put words in my mouth, and by ignoring the context in reality.
C. Why do you need a word to describe the character of people you don't know? Did you know that there are a great many people demonstrating in a great many ways in Baltimore? Why do you need to focus on destruction of property and not protest? Why do you need to focus on the actions of civilians and not the actions of police and the State? Why do I need to give you words to use? Can't you think for yourself?
A - You attempt to dictate who and what can participate in topic.
B - You created nonsensical qualification of "American Language".
C - You distract from topic by given messenger 3rd degree. Now that is a strawman. None of it has anything to do with topic and everything to do that you can't support your claims.
A. I did not, and do not, "call everything racist." That would be a strawman.
I did not say that you were calling everything racist.
Just because I say "calling everything racist is a distraction" in a post where I'm quoting you does not mean that I'm accusing you of it.
I meant that people in general who want to make the word "thug' (among other things) all about race
Take a chill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
B. You are the one attempting to dictate context by using absolutes, engaging in unwarranted argument, trying to put words in my mouth, and by ignoring the context in reality.
You do a fine job of all of that yourself, I don't need to do it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
C. Why do you need a word to describe the character of people you don't know?
I don't need to know them personally to see their character through the criminal behavior that they are so freely and enthusiastically displaying for all the world to see.....or to assign a word to describe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Did you know that there are a great many people demonstrating in a great many ways in Baltimore?
Yes, and no one is referring to the peaceful protesters as "thugs" nor are they trying to say that people don't have a right to peaceful protest. Al least no one that I've heard anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Why do you need to focus on destruction of property and not protest? Why do you need to focus on the actions of civilians and not the actions of police and the State?
Because stealing as many Nike's as you can get your hands or engaging in criminally violent and willfully destructive behavior is not a valid form of protest.
I focus on the actions of the state too but people never listen, they just go along with every stupid law that the government passes, in the delusional belief that more laws will somehow make them safer instead of just making more people criminals.
The media focuses on the violence because that's what sells airtime, I don't write the news and I didn't start this thread.
I also have no idea how what happened to Freddie Gray happened. I have no idea if the police did anything wrong in his case or not and speculating on it would be nothing but hyperbole.
In fact, you along with everyone who's protesting don't have any idea what happened to him either.
And the people selfishly looting and otherwise engaging in violent, destructive behavior, supposedly on his behalf, certainly have no freaking clue either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Why do I need to give you words to use? Can't you think for yourself?
Because your the one who's claiming that the word "thug" is now suddenly unacceptable, not me.
But let me see if I can indulge you with some alternate words:
Criminal:......sort of generic. Technically anyone who breaks a law is a criminal. A prostitute is a criminal but not necessarily a thug.
Hooligan: ....doesn't quite convey the seriousness that thug does, has sort of a childish, "boys will be boys" connotation to it.
Ruffian: see Hooligan.
Vandal: This is partially fitting in this case, but vandalizing is generally in reference to property, not violence against people or arson etc.
Gangster: Again, partially fitting in this case, except the obvious correlation to membership in an organized gang of some sort, which is not necessarily fitting in this case and would probably also be cast as racially motivated as well.....so that one's out.
Hoodlum: Probably appropriate in this case but also suggests gang membership or affiliation with a particular neighborhood and would therefore also be cast as racially slanted.
Goon: Has sort of a Halloween-ish ring to it, and also suggests Mafia affiliation..... which I don't think anyone is accusing the people currently engaging in theft, looting, assault, and violent destruction of property and arson in Baltimore of.
There's seven alternatives........can you not give me one that's a more befitting term in this case?
Because your the one who's claiming that the word "thug" is now suddenly unacceptable, not me.
But let me see if I can indulge you with some alternate words:
Criminal:......sort of generic. Technically anyone who breaks a law is a criminal. A prostitute is a criminal but not necessarily a thug.
Hooligan: ....doesn't quite convey the seriousness that thug does, has sort of a childish, "boys will be boys" connotation to it.
Ruffian: see Hooligan.
Vandal: This is partially fitting in this case, but vandalizing is generally in reference to property, not violence against people or arson etc.
Gangster: Again, partially fitting in this case, except the obvious correlation to membership in an organized gang of some sort, which is not necessarily fitting in this case and would probably also be cast as racially motivated as well.....so that one's out.
Hoodlum: Probably appropriate in this case but also suggests gang membership or affiliation with a particular neighborhood and would therefore also be cast as racially slanted.
Goon: Has sort of a Halloween-ish ring to it, and also suggests Mafia affiliation..... which I don't think anyone is accusing the people currently engaging in theft, looting, assault, and violent destruction of property and arson in Baltimore of.
There's seven alternatives........can you not give me one that's a more befitting term in this case?
Thug is the right word. And hoodlum would work also. The looters that we all saw in Baltimore are thugs and hoodlums.
I would contrast these people with the homo-fascists who terrorized the Memories Pizza shop owner in Indiana. Those people I would also describe as thugs, but hoodlums somehow does not seem to work for them.
So what about the woman who beat her child on national tv. Is he a thug? Also after his interview with Anderson Cooper with his mom, telling Cooper he will protest the right way, is he still a thug?
Yes, most times in the media, when they use the word "thug", they are referring to black people. The problem really comes in when black people are called thugs simply because they have dreadlocks, or wear certain clothes. Is this guy a thug....
And there it is. They just don't like being called that.
By the way, according to your own logic, why do you need to focus on what words anyone else is using to describe behavior that is clearly shameful and anti-social? What do you think the chances are that anyone is going to have their speech or their opinions censored or controlled by you or anyone who thinks like you?
There are a vast array of words we now consider slurs that were once considered useable in polite company. They no longer are because people pay attention to language and meaning. The entire subject of this thread is a word and its usage. If you do not care about "focus[ing] on what words anyone else is using," then why are you here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
A - You attempt to dictate who and what can participate in topic.
B - You created nonsensical qualification of "American Language".
C - You distract from topic by given messenger 3rd degree. Now that is a strawman. None of it has anything to do with topic and everything to do that you can't support your claims.
I told you that you were changing the subject. You were. You also don't understand what a strawman is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
I did not say that you were calling everything racist.
You quoted me, then said "Calling everything racist is the distraction from reality." Post #74.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Just because I say "calling everything racist is a distraction" in a post where I'm quoting you does not mean that I'm accusing you of it.
I meant that people in general who want to make the word "thug' (among other things) all about race
So you are saying I am right about context? But instead of acknowledging that you argued for no reason?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Take a chill.
I am quite relaxed. I also write clearly and respond directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
You do a fine job of all of that yourself, I don't need to do it for you.
So when I called you out for an unwarranted attack, you denied that it was directed at me, in spite of the fact that your post was clearly responsive to mine, but I am the one ignoring context? Odd definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
I don't need to know them personally to see their character through the criminal behavior that they are so freely and enthusiastically displaying for all the world to see.....or to assign a word to describe it.
So you can see *their* character through the ether? Is that kind of like when G.W. Bush met V. Putin and "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul."?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Yes, and no one is referring to the peaceful protesters as "thugs" nor are they trying to say that people don't have a right to peaceful protest. Al least no one that I've heard anyways.
Boston Tea Partiers freely and enthusiastically engaged criminal behavior and willful destruction of property. Were they thugs too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Because steeling as many Nike's as you can get your hands or engaging in criminally violent and willfully destructive behavior is not a valid form of protest.
Who are you to choose what form of protest is valid or invalid?
Donald Rumsfeld 2003: "The task we've got ahead of us now is an awkward one . . . It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crime and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here. . . . While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime. And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures . . . (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."
Rumsfeld not your speed? How about Jefferson 1787: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
I focus on the actions of the state too but people never listen, they just go along with every stupid law that the government passes, in the delusional belief that more laws will somehow make them safer instead of just making more people criminals.
So why are you ignoring the actions of the State in this circumstance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
The media focuses on the violence because that's what sells airtime, I don't write the news and I didn't start this thread.
They focus on a particular manifestation of violence--which is not the first one. Perhaps the attention drawn by that manifestation of violence is important for shining light on forgotten corners of American life and forgotten encroachments on liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
I also have no idea how what happened to Freddie Gray happened. I have no idea if the police did anything wrong in his case or not and speculating on it would be nothing but hyperbole.
In fact, you along with everyone who's protesting don't have any idea what happened to him either.
And the people selfishly looting and otherwise engaging in violent, destructive behavior, supposedly on his behalf, certainly have no freaking clue either.
Want to know the secret of the straw that broke the camel's back? There's a million other straws underneath it. I think the people out in the streets in Baltimore know an awful lot more about Baltimore policing than I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Because your the one who's claiming that the word "thug" is now suddenly unacceptable, not me.
Strawman alert: "you can admit that there are some folks who use the term 'thug' when they mean the 'n-word'."
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
But let me see if I can indulge you with some alternate words:
Criminal:......sort of generic. Technically anyone who breaks a law is a criminal. A prostitute is a criminal but not necessarily a thug.
And you would agree that criminal applies to Boston Tea Partiers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Hooligan: ....doesn't quite convey the seriousness that thug does, has sort of a childish, "boys will be boys" connotation to it.
And is generally used in reference to purposeless destruction and violence. Also uncommon usage in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Ruffian: see Hooligan.
See hooligan, indeed. Also faded in usage post-19th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Vandal: This is partially fitting in this case, but vandalizing is generally in reference to property, not violence against people or arson etc.
The overwhelming majority of rioting in Baltimore has been vandalism--destruction of property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Gangster: Again, partially fitting in this case, except the obvious correlation to membership in an organized gang of some sort, which is not necessarily fitting in this case and would probably also be cast as racially motivated as well.....so that one's out.
Gangster refers to one in a gang. It is not a fitting term for the Baltimore rioters. "Not necessarily fitting" is an incredible understatement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Hoodlum: Probably appropriate in this case but also suggests gang membership or affiliation with a particular neighborhood and would therefore also be cast as racially slanted.
It does suggest gang affiliation, and youth. It too is inappropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Goon: Has sort of a Halloween-ish ring to it, and also suggests Mafia affiliation..... which I don't think anyone is accusing the people currently engaging in theft, looting, assault, and violent destruction of property and arson in Baltimore of.
Certainly used in connection with gang organization, also implies intimidation. Also inappropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
There's seven alternatives........can you not give me one that's a more befitting term in this case?
I suggested you think for yourself, but I've already used the appropriate term several times in this post: "rioters." It is the precise word for people who are rioting. Use demonstrators if you want to refer to the broader group. Rioters for a subgroup. Looters for another subgroup. It's not hard to be precise.
There are a vast array of words we now consider slurs that were once considered useable in polite company. They no longer are because people pay attention to language and meaning. The entire subject of this thread is a word and its usage. If you do not care about "focus[ing] on what words anyone else is using," then why are you here?
The word thug certainly is not such a word. People in polite company very certainly use the word thug, and there is no reason they should refrain from doing so.
Perhaps what you were evasively trying to suggest is that there are many words and phrases that the left has designated as politically incorrect, and that in the circles you run in, that sort of social regulation is taken seriously and deferred to. LOL.
Needless to say, I do not take such notions seriously and I very certainly do not defer to leftist notions of political correctness. I never have and I never will.
So what about the woman who beat her child on national tv. Is he a thug? Also after his interview with Anderson Cooper with his mom, telling Cooper he will protest the right way, is he still a thug?
nope.
he was attempting to be one before mom slapped the snot out of him.
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.
