BLM a terrorist organization??

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

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.

mace1229 said:

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.