To (say) Thug or to not (say) Thug, that is my ?

1356

Comments

  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661

    Looters looters looters looters looters looters looters looters looters ok how about we just call them this ok fucking LOOTERS

    I'll stick with thugs.
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,567

    Looters looters looters looters looters looters looters looters looters ok how about we just call them this ok fucking LOOTERS

    I'll stick with thugs.
    I didn't expect any thing different from you ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661

    Looters looters looters looters looters looters looters looters looters ok how about we just call them this ok fucking LOOTERS

    I'll stick with thugs.
    I didn't expect any thing different from you ...
    If all they did was loot, I'd agree with you. Thug incorporates all the crimes they were committing. The arson, the vandalism, and assaults against the cops shouldn't be ignored. Even if you want to.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    edited April 2015
    I'm comfortable with thugs, criminals, rabble rousers for fuck's sake, whatever. Seriously, I can't believe it's a debate. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but suggesting that "thugs" could be specific to black people in any scenario is completely ridiculous.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,602
    Doesn't it really describe behavior?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,567
    Why can't you guys just be honest about it the term " thug " is describing a black man it certainly is not describing a white male ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697

    Why can't you guys just be honest about it the term " thug " is describing a black man it certainly is not describing a white male ...

    It's not.And your off base.This whole overly PC thing is ridiculous.I mean Cmon is a punk just a white kid with a Mohawk?
    It's no wonder this country has gotten so soft.Everone walking on eggshells.Fuck that.Im no rascist.Not even a little,but those criminals who were slicing fire hoses and burning down buisnesses were Thugs plain and simple.You guys crack me up.
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    PJ_Soul said:

    I'm comfortable with thugs, criminals, rabble rousers for fuck's sake, whatever. Seriously, I can't believe it's a debate. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but suggesting that "thugs" could be specific to black people in any scenario is completely ridiculous.

    How dare you use common sense.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172

    Why can't you guys just be honest about it the term " thug " is describing a black man it certainly is not describing a white male ...

    Five years ago thug was perfectly acceptable. Five years from now what's the next term that won't be?

    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,336
    JimmyV said:

    Why can't you guys just be honest about it the term " thug " is describing a black man it certainly is not describing a white male ...

    Five years ago thug was perfectly acceptable. Five years from now what's the next term that won't be?


    Language evolves. Why are people so afraid of that?

    "I FEAR CHANGE. WE ARE ALL BECOMING SOFT IN AMERICA. OBAMA IS RUINING THIS COUNTRY."


    ^^^^Sarcasim
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    Why can't you guys just be honest about it the term " thug " is describing a black man it certainly is not describing a white male ...

    Five years ago thug was perfectly acceptable. Five years from now what's the next term that won't be?


    Language evolves. Why are people so afraid of that?

    "I FEAR CHANGE. WE ARE ALL BECOMING SOFT IN AMERICA. OBAMA IS RUINING THIS COUNTRY."


    ^^^^Sarcasim
    No one is "afraid" of anything.

    Just because a word makes you uncomfortable because you've decided it means something that it doesn't is no reason for others to stop saying it.

    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    I fully expect "looter" to be off the table in five years. I really do.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,336
    image
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    Yep, those of us that don't subscribe to this very blatant policing of the English language are old men yelling at clouds. You got us.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,336
    JimmyV said:

    Yep, those of us that don't subscribe to this very blatant policing of the English language are old men yelling at clouds. You got us.

    It's a joke, I thought it was funny.

  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    Yep, those of us that don't subscribe to this very blatant policing of the English language are old men yelling at clouds. You got us.

    It's a joke, I thought it was funny.

    Simpsons pictures are always funny. It just didn't add much to the discussion.

    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,336
    edited May 2015
    JimmyV said:

    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    Why can't you guys just be honest about it the term " thug " is describing a black man it certainly is not describing a white male ...

    Five years ago thug was perfectly acceptable. Five years from now what's the next term that won't be?


    Language evolves. Why are people so afraid of that?

    "I FEAR CHANGE. WE ARE ALL BECOMING SOFT IN AMERICA. OBAMA IS RUINING THIS COUNTRY."


    ^^^^Sarcasim
    No one is "afraid" of anything.

    Just because a word makes you uncomfortable because you've decided it means something that it doesn't is no reason for others to stop saying it.

    You do realize this could be said about all kinds of disparaging words right? I could list them if you like.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    Why can't you guys just be honest about it the term " thug " is describing a black man it certainly is not describing a white male ...

    Five years ago thug was perfectly acceptable. Five years from now what's the next term that won't be?


    Language evolves. Why are people so afraid of that?

    "I FEAR CHANGE. WE ARE ALL BECOMING SOFT IN AMERICA. OBAMA IS RUINING THIS COUNTRY."


    ^^^^Sarcasim
    No one is "afraid" of anything.

    Just because a word makes you uncomfortable because you've decided it means something that it doesn't is no reason for others to stop saying it.

    You do realize this could be said about all kinds of disparaging words right? I could list them if you like.
    Of course it could. Feel free to list away. My bet is many of the words you list can be tied to a specific group, whereas "thug" cannot.

    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,336
    JimmyV said:

    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    Why can't you guys just be honest about it the term " thug " is describing a black man it certainly is not describing a white male ...

    Five years ago thug was perfectly acceptable. Five years from now what's the next term that won't be?


    Language evolves. Why are people so afraid of that?

    "I FEAR CHANGE. WE ARE ALL BECOMING SOFT IN AMERICA. OBAMA IS RUINING THIS COUNTRY."


    ^^^^Sarcasim
    No one is "afraid" of anything.

    Just because a word makes you uncomfortable because you've decided it means something that it doesn't is no reason for others to stop saying it.

    You do realize this could be said about all kinds of disparaging words right? I could list them if you like.
    Of course it could. Feel free to list away. My bet is many of the words you list can be tied to a specific group, whereas "thug" cannot.

    This right here is a fundamental difference of belief. We see things differently I guess, and I'm ok with that.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    dignin said:

    JimmyV said:

    Why can't you guys just be honest about it the term " thug " is describing a black man it certainly is not describing a white male ...

    Five years ago thug was perfectly acceptable. Five years from now what's the next term that won't be?


    Language evolves. Why are people so afraid of that?

    "I FEAR CHANGE. WE ARE ALL BECOMING SOFT IN AMERICA. OBAMA IS RUINING THIS COUNTRY."


    ^^^^Sarcasim
    No one is "afraid" of anything.

    Just because a word makes you uncomfortable because you've decided it means something that it doesn't is no reason for others to stop saying it.

    You do realize this could be said about all kinds of disparaging words right? I could list them if you like.
    Of course it could. Feel free to list away. My bet is many of the words you list can be tied to a specific group, whereas "thug" cannot.

    This right here is a fundamental difference of belief. We see things differently I guess, and I'm ok with that.
    Cool.

    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • I love how I presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary of the notion that 'thug' is reserved for black people and people not only chose to ignore it... they persist with their argument.

    In the event some are talking more than they are listening: Mayor Gregor Robertson publically denounced the large, predominantly white contingency of rioters in Vancouver as thugs.

    He did so because that is what these 'individuals-persisting-with-non-legal-activities' (would that satisfy some?) were- thugs.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576

    I love how I presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary of the notion that 'thug' is reserved for black people and people not only chose to ignore it... they persist with their argument.

    In the event some are talking more than they are listening: Mayor Gregor Robertson publically denounced the large, predominantly white contingency of rioters in Vancouver as thugs.

    He did so because that is what these 'individuals-persisting-with-non-legal-activities' (would that satisfy some?) were- thugs.

    I don't think Vancouver is a great example at all. Canada simply doesn't have the same racial tensions that we do. If you find an example from the US please post it, I am not sure it hasn't happened, but you can bet your bottom dollar Fox News doesn't call any white people thugs.

    Even if they do occasionally, some of you are seriously blind if you don't see that there are people out there who are using thug as a new racist epithet. It happens, get over it. Thug is not a racist term, but it gets used as one, and that is plain truth, if you can't see that your eyes are closed.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,602
    dude, he hgave you what you asked for. then you change the parameters. In Baltimore you have people who continue to try to work within the acepted means of peaceful protest. Then you have a group of younger people bent on grabbing shit that dont belong to them. Thuggish behaviour. it fits , you cant acquit . Why they feel the need or want to do such things is another question.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    rgambs said:

    I love how I presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary of the notion that 'thug' is reserved for black people and people not only chose to ignore it... they persist with their argument.

    In the event some are talking more than they are listening: Mayor Gregor Robertson publically denounced the large, predominantly white contingency of rioters in Vancouver as thugs.

    He did so because that is what these 'individuals-persisting-with-non-legal-activities' (would that satisfy some?) were- thugs.

    I don't think Vancouver is a great example at all. Canada simply doesn't have the same racial tensions that we do. If you find an example from the US please post it, I am not sure it hasn't happened, but you can bet your bottom dollar Fox News doesn't call any white people thugs.

    Even if they do occasionally, some of you are seriously blind if you don't see that there are people out there who are using thug as a new racist epithet. It happens, get over it. Thug is not a racist term, but it gets used as one, and that is plain truth, if you can't see that your eyes are closed.
    If Vancouver isn't a good example then neither is Fox News. Fox speaks to a certain audience only and that audience does not include you or I. Much like Richard Sherman, Fox doesn't get to decide what words mean, or define how they are used across society.

    I'm off to see the Avengers but I'm sure I'll check in later.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    mickeyrat said:

    dude, he hgave you what you asked for. then you change the parameters. In Baltimore you have people who continue to try to work within the acepted means of peaceful protest. Then you have a group of younger people bent on grabbing shit that dont belong to them. Thuggish behaviour. it fits , you cant acquit . Why they feel the need or want to do such things is another question.

    Of course it fits, I have said that several times.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    JimmyV said:

    rgambs said:

    I love how I presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary of the notion that 'thug' is reserved for black people and people not only chose to ignore it... they persist with their argument.

    In the event some are talking more than they are listening: Mayor Gregor Robertson publically denounced the large, predominantly white contingency of rioters in Vancouver as thugs.

    He did so because that is what these 'individuals-persisting-with-non-legal-activities' (would that satisfy some?) were- thugs.

    I don't think Vancouver is a great example at all. Canada simply doesn't have the same racial tensions that we do. If you find an example from the US please post it, I am not sure it hasn't happened, but you can bet your bottom dollar Fox News doesn't call any white people thugs.

    Even if they do occasionally, some of you are seriously blind if you don't see that there are people out there who are using thug as a new racist epithet. It happens, get over it. Thug is not a racist term, but it gets used as one, and that is plain truth, if you can't see that your eyes are closed.
    If Vancouver isn't a good example then neither is Fox News. Fox speaks to a certain audience only and that audience does not include you or I. Much like Richard Sherman, Fox doesn't get to decide what words mean, or define how they are used across society.

    I'm off to see the Avengers but I'm sure I'll check in later.
    I disagree entirely. Fox News is American, it is the most watched news network, and it the network of choice for white racists...seems like a good example of the fact that some words, like thug and terroris(m/t), are used selectively in a racist way.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Posts: 12,845
    JimmyV said:

    rgambs said:

    I love how I presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary of the notion that 'thug' is reserved for black people and people not only chose to ignore it... they persist with their argument.

    In the event some are talking more than they are listening: Mayor Gregor Robertson publically denounced the large, predominantly white contingency of rioters in Vancouver as thugs.

    He did so because that is what these 'individuals-persisting-with-non-legal-activities' (would that satisfy some?) were- thugs.

    I don't think Vancouver is a great example at all. Canada simply doesn't have the same racial tensions that we do. If you find an example from the US please post it, I am not sure it hasn't happened, but you can bet your bottom dollar Fox News doesn't call any white people thugs.

    Even if they do occasionally, some of you are seriously blind if you don't see that there are people out there who are using thug as a new racist epithet. It happens, get over it. Thug is not a racist term, but it gets used as one, and that is plain truth, if you can't see that your eyes are closed.
    If Vancouver isn't a good example then neither is Fox News. Fox speaks to a certain audience only and that audience does not include you or I. Much like Richard Sherman, Fox doesn't get to decide what words mean, or define how they are used across society.

    I'm off to see the Avengers but I'm sure I'll check in later.
    The other part to this being that the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots happened in 2011 and we're talking about word usage in 2015. If we are talking about evolving usage, that's plenty of time for it.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • JimmyV said:

    rgambs said:

    I love how I presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary of the notion that 'thug' is reserved for black people and people not only chose to ignore it... they persist with their argument.

    In the event some are talking more than they are listening: Mayor Gregor Robertson publically denounced the large, predominantly white contingency of rioters in Vancouver as thugs.

    He did so because that is what these 'individuals-persisting-with-non-legal-activities' (would that satisfy some?) were- thugs.

    I don't think Vancouver is a great example at all. Canada simply doesn't have the same racial tensions that we do. If you find an example from the US please post it, I am not sure it hasn't happened, but you can bet your bottom dollar Fox News doesn't call any white people thugs.

    Even if they do occasionally, some of you are seriously blind if you don't see that there are people out there who are using thug as a new racist epithet. It happens, get over it. Thug is not a racist term, but it gets used as one, and that is plain truth, if you can't see that your eyes are closed.
    If Vancouver isn't a good example then neither is Fox News. Fox speaks to a certain audience only and that audience does not include you or I. Much like Richard Sherman, Fox doesn't get to decide what words mean, or define how they are used across society.

    I'm off to see the Avengers but I'm sure I'll check in later.
    The other part to this being that the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots happened in 2011 and we're talking about word usage in 2015. If we are talking about evolving usage, that's plenty of time for it.
    Plenty of time? Are you serious?

    4 years... and a common word is plucked from everyday vernacular and converted to succinctly depicting a group based on their race when engaged in the behaviors typically eliciting the descriptive term?

    What's the new term for 'white' thugs?

    No. No way.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Posts: 12,845

    JimmyV said:

    rgambs said:

    I love how I presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary of the notion that 'thug' is reserved for black people and people not only chose to ignore it... they persist with their argument.

    In the event some are talking more than they are listening: Mayor Gregor Robertson publically denounced the large, predominantly white contingency of rioters in Vancouver as thugs.

    He did so because that is what these 'individuals-persisting-with-non-legal-activities' (would that satisfy some?) were- thugs.

    I don't think Vancouver is a great example at all. Canada simply doesn't have the same racial tensions that we do. If you find an example from the US please post it, I am not sure it hasn't happened, but you can bet your bottom dollar Fox News doesn't call any white people thugs.

    Even if they do occasionally, some of you are seriously blind if you don't see that there are people out there who are using thug as a new racist epithet. It happens, get over it. Thug is not a racist term, but it gets used as one, and that is plain truth, if you can't see that your eyes are closed.
    If Vancouver isn't a good example then neither is Fox News. Fox speaks to a certain audience only and that audience does not include you or I. Much like Richard Sherman, Fox doesn't get to decide what words mean, or define how they are used across society.

    I'm off to see the Avengers but I'm sure I'll check in later.
    The other part to this being that the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots happened in 2011 and we're talking about word usage in 2015. If we are talking about evolving usage, that's plenty of time for it.
    Plenty of time? Are you serious?

    4 years... and a common word is plucked from everyday vernacular and converted to succinctly depicting a group based on their race when engaged in the behaviors typically eliciting the descriptive term?

    What's the new term for 'white' thugs?

    No. No way.
    I"m not arguing for or against the validity of this usage, Thirty, I'm just saying that word meanings can change very quickly. How quickly did the word "tweet" come to commonly mean a post on twitter instead of the sound of a bird? Or go listen to any teenagers talk.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,602

    JimmyV said:

    rgambs said:

    I love how I presented irrefutable evidence to the contrary of the notion that 'thug' is reserved for black people and people not only chose to ignore it... they persist with their argument.

    In the event some are talking more than they are listening: Mayor Gregor Robertson publically denounced the large, predominantly white contingency of rioters in Vancouver as thugs.

    He did so because that is what these 'individuals-persisting-with-non-legal-activities' (would that satisfy some?) were- thugs.

    I don't think Vancouver is a great example at all. Canada simply doesn't have the same racial tensions that we do. If you find an example from the US please post it, I am not sure it hasn't happened, but you can bet your bottom dollar Fox News doesn't call any white people thugs.

    Even if they do occasionally, some of you are seriously blind if you don't see that there are people out there who are using thug as a new racist epithet. It happens, get over it. Thug is not a racist term, but it gets used as one, and that is plain truth, if you can't see that your eyes are closed.
    If Vancouver isn't a good example then neither is Fox News. Fox speaks to a certain audience only and that audience does not include you or I. Much like Richard Sherman, Fox doesn't get to decide what words mean, or define how they are used across society.

    I'm off to see the Avengers but I'm sure I'll check in later.
    The other part to this being that the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots happened in 2011 and we're talking about word usage in 2015. If we are talking about evolving usage, that's plenty of time for it.
    Plenty of time? Are you serious?

    4 years... and a common word is plucked from everyday vernacular and converted to succinctly depicting a group based on their race when engaged in the behaviors typically eliciting the descriptive term?

    What's the new term for 'white' thugs?

    No. No way.
    I"m not arguing for or against the validity of this usage, Thirty, I'm just saying that word meanings can change very quickly. How quickly did the word "tweet" come to commonly mean a post on twitter instead of the sound of a bird? Or go listen to any teenagers talk.
    New meaning doesnt negate old either.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Sign In or Register to comment.