There's much truth in this piece that some on here simply will not accept.
There's definitely a societal problem, but these riots are merely excuses to act like f**king idiots- thugs is the more appropriate term, but I didn't want to use it lest some MT members spit their chai latte all over their trimmed beard and fashionable clothing which they have managed to buy with their privileged spot in society.
I didn't click it, but what's the truth people won't accept?
And also you hit two prejudices in one paragragh: one with the thug usage, and one about a person who might see that as a prejudicial remark. Not bad.
'Prejudices' in your mind the way you see things. Right?
Yah. No.
(except for the really chill hipster descript... I'll admit to that one)
Yeah, yes. There's a reason the term thug is used for someone after certain criteria is met, otherwise people would use the universal 'criminal'.
No you're wrong.
Vancouver rioters were called thugs. There was nary a black person among them.
I gather it's not the same or comparable just because there are hardly any black people in Vancouver or most of the rest of Canada outside of Toronto, and there is no big racist problem in general. This whole thug thing just isn't relevant north of the border. Apparently the word has a lot of context in the USA alone. Which makes a lot of sense. Why would it have such strong racial overtones in a place where none of the issues or factors that created the racism exist?
Yes, here, in Canada, thugs are still just any random asshole, whatever the colour of their skin, who are acting like aggressive, destructive, criminal, and/or violent dicks for no good reason (and 99.9% or the time they're guys, obvi).
Because idiots assert that the word has a special meaning in their world and try to convince others the same.
A thug is a thug whether they are black, white, red, or lavender. The word is not discerning: it is bestowed upon anyone who acts like one.
You sure are on a roll tonight. Calling us idiots is uncalled for. I'm done "debating" with you tonight. You are all kinds of nasty, you should take a break.
I think everyone of sound mind can agree that the suggestion of the thread title is ridiculous.
Explain please
The idea that BLM is a terrorist organization is ridiculous.
Hence the question marks. Did you by chance go to the link where it was proposed to the White House? Over 144,000 signed it, so many people do believe that they are. The question marks are there for your opinions. I'm with you, I don't classify them as terrorists. Don't know what specific label to put on them but protestors is not one of them
There's much truth in this piece that some on here simply will not accept.
There's definitely a societal problem, but these riots are merely excuses to act like f**king idiots- thugs is the more appropriate term, but I didn't want to use it lest some MT members spit their chai latte all over their trimmed beard and fashionable clothing which they have managed to buy with their privileged spot in society.
I didn't click it, but what's the truth people won't accept?
And also you hit two prejudices in one paragragh: one with the thug usage, and one about a person who might see that as a prejudicial remark. Not bad.
'Prejudices' in your mind the way you see things. Right?
Yah. No.
(except for the really chill hipster descript... I'll admit to that one)
Yeah, yes. There's a reason the term thug is used for someone after certain criteria is met, otherwise people would use the universal 'criminal'.
No you're wrong.
Vancouver rioters were called thugs. There was nary a black person among them.
I gather it's not the same or comparable just because there are hardly any black people in Vancouver or most of the rest of Canada outside of Toronto, and there is no big racist problem in general. This whole thug thing just isn't relevant north of the border. Apparently the word has a lot of context in the USA alone. Which makes a lot of sense. Why would it have such strong racial overtones in a place where none of the issues or factors that created the racism exist?
Yes, here, in Canada, thugs are still just any random asshole, whatever the colour of their skin, who are acting like aggressive, destructive, criminal, and/or violent dicks for no good reason (and 99.9% or the time they're guys, obvi).
Because idiots assert that the word has a special meaning in their world and try to convince others the same.
A thug is a thug whether they are black, white, red, or lavender. The word is not discerning: it is bestowed upon anyone who acts like one.
No, culture does have an impact on meaning man. A word can have different contexts depending on the culture it's being used in. There is nothing offensive about this, I don't see why anyone would argue against it. If the word thug has been transformed in the US to generally mean "black man" or even "scary black man" or "troublemaking black man", then that makes the word offensive and racist in the USA because it's become a racially charged dergatory term, given the dictionary definition of thug. Apparently, in the US, when someone uses the word, the racial connection is generally implied. That's just what's happened somehow. The word is not used like that anywhere else, so the word is not offensive outside of the USA. Makes sense to me. What's the problem?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think everyone of sound mind can agree that the suggestion of the thread title is ridiculous.
Explain please
The idea that BLM is a terrorist organization is ridiculous.
Hence the question marks. Did you by chance go to the link where it was proposed to the White House? Over 144,000 signed it, so many people do believe that they are. The question marks are there for your opinions. I'm with you, I don't classify them as terrorists. Don't know what specific label to put on them but protestors is not one of them
Why can't they be called protesters?? They seem like protesters to me. They are the very definition of protesters. Are you saying that just because you don't like the method of protest? Or are you trying to make random looters who are taking advantage of a situation BLM members?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm always surprised when people talk about "thug" as though it only refers to black people. Merriam Webster still defines "Thug" simply as "a violent criminal".
Language changes. It always has but I'm not so sure the rapid fire changes taking place in language today is a wise move. It makes communication less precise and more open to misunderstanding and imprecision. And this doesn't even touch upon how it relates to dumbing down. I know people who actually think "prolly" is the correct word meaning "likely" as is probably.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm always surprised when people talk about "thug" as though it only refers to black people. Merriam Webster still defines "Thug" simply as "a violent criminal".
Language changes. It always has but I'm not so sure the rapid fire changes taking place in language today is a wise move. It makes communication less precise and more open to misunderstanding and imprecision. And this doesn't even touch upon how it relates to dumbing down. I know people who actually think "prolly" is the correct word meaning "likely" as is probably.
I don't think the apparent change in the US meaning of the word thug has anything to do with ebonics and/or whatever the word might be for the non-African-American-specific application of such, like you see with what all the texting and tweeting is doing to the written language, such as "prolly" for probably. Totally different issue (and yes, I agree that's disturbing).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think a lot of words/names/phrases that would be considered to be racist or deplorable have taken a less offensive meaning in the US. Primarily because of the use in the entertainment industry. Rap music and movies for example have used words such as thug and much worse over and over and over again. Many times those words are put in a context of glorification. When people hear it over years and years, it becomes a norm. And if those who are producing these words/phrases/names are making money and fame from it, the likelihood of it coming to an end is improbable
But the word thug has a MORE offensive meaning in the US, not less.
If you were talking about the N-word I might agree, for the US. It seems that some white people in the US actually use that word still. Like in kind of normal conversation while referring to black people, at least when they know the people they're talking to won't mind. Alrhough to just about any Canadian that would be totally shocking. I think most would assume that any person who did that must belong to some white power organization or something. And we consume the same media as Americans do ... I think what it really comes down to is that America has a really big racism problem, and these little language issues are the most mild symptoms of that.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm always surprised when people talk about "thug" as though it only refers to black people. Merriam Webster still defines "Thug" simply as "a violent criminal".
Language changes. It always has but I'm not so sure the rapid fire changes taking place in language today is a wise move. It makes communication less precise and more open to misunderstanding and imprecision. And this doesn't even touch upon how it relates to dumbing down. I know people who actually think "prolly" is the correct word meaning "likely" as is probably.
I don't think the apparent change in the US meaning of the word thug has anything to do with ebonics and/or whatever the word might be for the non-African-American-specific application of such, like you see with what all the texting and tweeting is doing to the written language, such as "prolly" for probably. Totally different issue (and yes, I agree that's disturbing).
You had mentioned, "If the word thug has been transformed in the US to generally mean "black man" or even "scary black man" or "troublemaking black man", then that makes the word offensive and racist in the USA because it's become a racially charged dergatory term, given the dictionary definition of thug."
I guess to my way of thinking, the rapid permutation of a word by a certain sector of society is at least just as offensive as the racist implication of referring "thug" as meaning a type of black person. It's language carnage. I'm just not a fan!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm always surprised when people talk about "thug" as though it only refers to black people. Merriam Webster still defines "Thug" simply as "a violent criminal".
Language changes. It always has but I'm not so sure the rapid fire changes taking place in language today is a wise move. It makes communication less precise and more open to misunderstanding and imprecision. And this doesn't even touch upon how it relates to dumbing down. I know people who actually think "prolly" is the correct word meaning "likely" as is probably.
I don't think the apparent change in the US meaning of the word thug has anything to do with ebonics and/or whatever the word might be for the non-African-American-specific application of such, like you see with what all the texting and tweeting is doing to the written language, such as "prolly" for probably. Totally different issue (and yes, I agree that's disturbing).
You had mentioned, "If the word thug has been transformed in the US to generally mean "black man" or even "scary black man" or "troublemaking black man", then that makes the word offensive and racist in the USA because it's become a racially charged dergatory term, given the dictionary definition of thug."
I guess to my way of thinking, the rapid permutation of a word by a certain sector of society is at least just as offensive as the racist implication of referring "thug" as meaning a type of black person. It's language carnage. I'm just not a fan!
I understand, but they are still two very different issues, with very very different causes and very different implications.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm always surprised when people talk about "thug" as though it only refers to black people. Merriam Webster still defines "Thug" simply as "a violent criminal".
Language changes. It always has but I'm not so sure the rapid fire changes taking place in language today is a wise move. It makes communication less precise and more open to misunderstanding and imprecision. And this doesn't even touch upon how it relates to dumbing down. I know people who actually think "prolly" is the correct word meaning "likely" as is probably.
I don't think the apparent change in the US meaning of the word thug has anything to do with ebonics and/or whatever the word might be for the non-African-American-specific application of such, like you see with what all the texting and tweeting is doing to the written language, such as "prolly" for probably. Totally different issue (and yes, I agree that's disturbing).
You had mentioned, "If the word thug has been transformed in the US to generally mean "black man" or even "scary black man" or "troublemaking black man", then that makes the word offensive and racist in the USA because it's become a racially charged dergatory term, given the dictionary definition of thug."
I guess to my way of thinking, the rapid permutation of a word by a certain sector of society is at least just as offensive as the racist implication of referring "thug" as meaning a type of black person. It's language carnage. I'm just not a fan!
I understand, but they are still two very different issues, with very very different causes and very different implications.
So does this mean I have to strike "thug" from my vocabulary?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm always surprised when people talk about "thug" as though it only refers to black people. Merriam Webster still defines "Thug" simply as "a violent criminal".
Language changes. It always has but I'm not so sure the rapid fire changes taking place in language today is a wise move. It makes communication less precise and more open to misunderstanding and imprecision. And this doesn't even touch upon how it relates to dumbing down. I know people who actually think "prolly" is the correct word meaning "likely" as is probably.
I don't think the apparent change in the US meaning of the word thug has anything to do with ebonics and/or whatever the word might be for the non-African-American-specific application of such, like you see with what all the texting and tweeting is doing to the written language, such as "prolly" for probably. Totally different issue (and yes, I agree that's disturbing).
You had mentioned, "If the word thug has been transformed in the US to generally mean "black man" or even "scary black man" or "troublemaking black man", then that makes the word offensive and racist in the USA because it's become a racially charged dergatory term, given the dictionary definition of thug."
I guess to my way of thinking, the rapid permutation of a word by a certain sector of society is at least just as offensive as the racist implication of referring "thug" as meaning a type of black person. It's language carnage. I'm just not a fan!
I understand, but they are still two very different issues, with very very different causes and very different implications.
So does this mean I have to strike "thug" from my vocabulary?
You can do what you want. I know I wouldn't be using the word while in the US specifically because I'd be worried that it would be taken in a racial context (not that I use the word every day... how often are you really inclined to use the word thug anyway??). The cultural contexts behind words are not under our own personal control Brian, unfortunately. Say whatever you want of course... just be prepared for someone to take offense. And then you can explain your views on the use of the word. I would personally choose to just accept that the word thug now has a derogatory meaning and not use it. Again, i am not invested is uttering the word "thug", lol. It actually doesn't come up that much.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm always surprised when people talk about "thug" as though it only refers to black people. Merriam Webster still defines "Thug" simply as "a violent criminal".
Language changes. It always has but I'm not so sure the rapid fire changes taking place in language today is a wise move. It makes communication less precise and more open to misunderstanding and imprecision. And this doesn't even touch upon how it relates to dumbing down. I know people who actually think "prolly" is the correct word meaning "likely" as is probably.
I don't think the apparent change in the US meaning of the word thug has anything to do with ebonics and/or whatever the word might be for the non-African-American-specific application of such, like you see with what all the texting and tweeting is doing to the written language, such as "prolly" for probably. Totally different issue (and yes, I agree that's disturbing).
You had mentioned, "If the word thug has been transformed in the US to generally mean "black man" or even "scary black man" or "troublemaking black man", then that makes the word offensive and racist in the USA because it's become a racially charged dergatory term, given the dictionary definition of thug."
I guess to my way of thinking, the rapid permutation of a word by a certain sector of society is at least just as offensive as the racist implication of referring "thug" as meaning a type of black person. It's language carnage. I'm just not a fan!
I understand, but they are still two very different issues, with very very different causes and very different implications.
So does this mean I have to strike "thug" from my vocabulary?
You can do what you want. I know I wouldn't be using the word while in the US specifically because I'd be worried that it would be taken in a racial context (not that I use the word every day... how often are you really inclined to use the word thug anyway??). The cultural contexts behind words are not under our own personal control Brian, unfortunately. Say whatever you want of course... just be prepared for someone to take offense. And then you can explain your views on the use of the word. I would personally choose to just accept that the word thug now has a derogatory meaning and not use it. Again, i am not invested is uttering the word "thug", lol. It actually doesn't come up that much.
Ah phooey!
thug
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
BLM are not terrorists. But that title is tainted in my view because it gained all its momentum off a falsehood. That being the Michael Brown and the "hands up don't shoot" narrative. When I hear BLM I think of the first time I heard it, which was in reference to Ferguson and the riots. I've seen black leaders buy into that, NFL players protest and even a congresswoman say in an interview that she doesn't care about the facts of the case when asked why she protested with her hands up. Those who really want to do good would be better off separating themselves from BLM and starting a new organization that does care about facts and what happened and separates themselves from the looters and rioters.
BLM are not terrorists. But that title is tainted in my view because it gained all its momentum off a falsehood. That being the Michael Brown and the "hands up don't shoot" narrative. When I hear BLM I think of the first time I heard it, which was in reference to Ferguson and the riots. I've seen black leaders buy into that, NFL players protest and even a congresswoman say in an interview that she doesn't care about the facts of the case when asked why she protested with her hands up. Those who really want to do good would be better off separating themselves from BLM and starting a new organization that does care about facts and what happened and separates themselves from the looters and rioters.
The problem with any organization of this type is that they get infiltrated and altered. The original Earth First! group, for example, was infiltrated by troublemakers who twisted the motives of that group and destroyed the its integrity (yes, the original members had great integrity). Very possibly the same with BLM.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Could they at least stop with the "hands up don't shoot"? Every time I see that I cant help that they either don't care about what really happens and will be anti-cop no matter what, want an excuse to loot, or are just ignorant. Or perhaps most likely, that no matter what they will hold high any black individual who gets shot by police no matter the circumstances. That has been proven false on several levels. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I interpret it when I see protesters use that phrase, and they are already using it in SD. It just didn't happen.
Could they at least stop with the "hands up don't shoot"? Every time I see that I cant help that they either don't care about what really happens and will be anti-cop no matter what, want an excuse to loot, or are just ignorant. Or perhaps most likely, that no matter what they will hold high any black individual who gets shot by police no matter the circumstances. That has been proven false on several levels. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I interpret it when I see protesters use that phrase, and they are already using it in SD. It just didn't happen.
Could they at least stop with the "hands up don't shoot"? Every time I see that I cant help that they either don't care about what really happens and will be anti-cop no matter what, want an excuse to loot, or are just ignorant. Or perhaps most likely, that no matter what they will hold high any black individual who gets shot by police no matter the circumstances. That has been proven false on several levels. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I interpret it when I see protesters use that phrase, and they are already using it in SD. It just didn't happen.
It has happened since then though...
When? The closest thing I can think of is the Tulsa shooting. He had his hands up, but was otherwise no cooperating, and there has been no audio. The phrase "hands up don't shoot," at least to me, implies one fully cooperating and getting for his life. That just hasn't happened. Not to say that there hasn't been some unjustified shootings. I think there has been. But none that were racially motivated and shot a black person solely based on their color as the protest implies.
Charles Kinsey is the one who's name I know off the top of my head. He was laying on his back, hands in the air, pleading for police not to shoot.
I will definitely give you that one. Just as inexcusable as the shooting was the delay in medical care. I still don't think one scenario demonstrates a pattern worthy of a phrase like "hands up don't shoot" and everything that goes with those implications.
ohhhh stop it, you're just saying that because it's true LOL ! but really what besides violence have they accomplished ? they threaten to incite riots all over America if trump is elected, they're moving race relations backwards 100 years and they have the support of obama to do it.
ohhhh stop it, you're just saying that because it's true LOL ! but really what besides violence have they accomplished ? they threaten to incite riots all over America if trump is elected, they're moving race relations backwards 100 years and they have the support of obama to do it.
Godfather.
Waiting on the riots, lots of them will die if they leave their safe space neighborhoods.
ohhhh stop it, you're just saying that because it's true LOL ! but really what besides violence have they accomplished ? they threaten to incite riots all over America if trump is elected, they're moving race relations backwards 100 years and they have the support of obama to do it.
Godfather.
Waiting on the riots, lots of them will die if they leave their safe space neighborhoods.
Guess they tried to beat the white privilege out of him... ridiculous. Guess it must be true... those teenage black kids lives matter more than the white kid who nearly died after being assaulted.
Comments
No problem.
Language changes. It always has but I'm not so sure the rapid fire changes taking place in language today is a wise move. It makes communication less precise and more open to misunderstanding and imprecision. And this doesn't even touch upon how it relates to dumbing down. I know people who actually think "prolly" is the correct word meaning "likely" as is probably.
If you were talking about the N-word I might agree, for the US. It seems that some white people in the US actually use that word still. Like in kind of normal conversation while referring to black people, at least when they know the people they're talking to won't mind. Alrhough to just about any Canadian that would be totally shocking. I think most would assume that any person who did that must belong to some white power organization or something. And we consume the same media as Americans do ... I think what it really comes down to is that America has a really big racism problem, and these little language issues are the most mild symptoms of that.
I guess to my way of thinking, the rapid permutation of a word by a certain sector of society is at least just as offensive as the racist implication of referring "thug" as meaning a type of black person. It's language carnage. I'm just not a fan!
thugGodfather.
Every time I see that I cant help that they either don't care about what really happens and will be anti-cop no matter what, want an excuse to loot, or are just ignorant. Or perhaps most likely, that no matter what they will hold high any black individual who gets shot by police no matter the circumstances. That has been proven false on several levels. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I interpret it when I see protesters use that phrase, and they are already using it in SD. It just didn't happen.
The closest thing I can think of is the Tulsa shooting. He had his hands up, but was otherwise no cooperating, and there has been no audio. The phrase "hands up don't shoot," at least to me, implies one fully cooperating and getting for his life. That just hasn't happened.
Not to say that there hasn't been some unjustified shootings. I think there has been. But none that were racially motivated and shot a black person solely based on their color as the protest implies.
He was laying on his back, hands in the air, pleading for police not to shoot.
I still don't think one scenario demonstrates a pattern worthy of a phrase like "hands up don't shoot" and everything that goes with those implications.
but really what besides violence have they accomplished ? they threaten to incite riots all over America if trump is elected, they're
moving race relations backwards 100 years and they have the support of obama to do it.
Godfather.
Godfather.
just a bunch of useless pieces of ____
Godfather.