I say it with a soft 'g'
I can't cosign policing language. A thug is a criminal, and if someone commits a violent act or crime sure, I'm fine with calling them a thug. My problem is with the double standard that exists with respect to its application, and the broad way it's used.
For example if you're white and shoot up a movie theater or school you're a troubled young man with family or mental problems that need to be understood. If you're black and commit any crime you're a thug. Likewise if you're simply a black person who says or does something that offends, you're a thug too (see: Richard Sherman, Stanford graduate).
In short my view is that there's nothing wrong with the use of the word. But if it's going to be used, it should be used for criminals. Not just black criminals and "black people who annoy me."
I say it with a soft 'g'
I say it with a hard 'k' to be ahead of the trend I'm predicting will happen.fortition and/or lenition to word final velar stops in SAE :ufup
I like using Dumbass instead
I think there's too much of an emphasis on the word thug as a talking point, and maybe even on the usage of coded racial language overall.imo, words like thug and criminal are already inherently coded to police deviant behavior. They'll always reflect certain demographics the dominant culture won't find agreeable, in America's case this is most commonly articulated wrt race.
Use best avoided.
In short my view is that there's nothing wrong with the use of the word. But if it's going to be used, it should be used for criminals. Not just black criminals and "black people who annoy me."
Can we also talk about how white athletes have "high football/basketball IQs" or are "leaders in the locker room" but black athletes are "freaks" or "beasts"? :hitler
Can we also talk about how white athletes have "high football/basketball IQs" or are "leaders in the locker room" but black athletes are "freaks" or "beasts"? :hitler
"PD sure is eloquent explaining this, we need more people like him talking about Baltimore" :hitler
"PD sure is eloquent explaining this, we need more people like him talking about Baltimore" :hitler
"Sir, are you a black father?"
#rememberwhen Tony Hawk Underground was abbreviated THUG even though underground is a compound noun? Makes u think...
#rememberwhen Tony Hawk Underground was abbreviated THUG even though underground is a compound noun? Makes u think...#staywoke
i've already heard "them thuggers" :tocryI actually really like Barter 6 :avbehh
(http://i.imgur.com/kzN0n3M.jpg)
I mean you can say it's just a word, but people damn well know what they mean when they're using it. unless ofc you're dealing with the disingenuous jaydub types who say they'll use it to describe anyone but only ever happen to use it when taking about black people
Can we also talk about how white athletes have "high football/basketball IQs" or are "leaders in the locker room" but black athletes are "freaks" or "beasts"? :hitler
Can we work out a trade where we send thug and some other potential draft picks or minor leaguers to get the "n-word" back?
Once more on the whole "thug debate," addressing the argument people's motivations when using the word are steeped in racism. Setting aside for a moment the disturbing realization that to believe that means you also think those endangering the lives of innocents, and destroying property that doesn't belong to them, by rioting are the real victims here. God's Word explicitly says we are not to do evil so good may come. It is a very dangerous game to pretend you can read people's motivations or what's on their hearts. Motivations are typically God's domain, and the worst trouble I've gotten into during my career is when I have mistakenly believed I could do it.https://www.facebook.com/stevedeace/posts/441381816041863
However, if this is the new standard that literally means every word can simply be redefined based on the motivations of the speaker, which is moral relativism at its core. Now we're not even fixed to word definitions that predate us, either? So if the terms "hooligan" or "jerk" or "miscreant" were used instead, would they suddenly be racist? Does the term thug exist only within a racial context? Or does it transcend it? Are we really saying that calling thugs in the Baltimore case anything other than "misguided African-Americans who have a legitimate point" is now racist? Have we not had "thugs" as a term before today's racial debates? Of course we have, but we haven't had the "n-word" which is further evidence they're not the same.
Besides, it is the human heart that corrupts words. It is not the words that corrupt our hearts. The human heart is so wicked it can even turn God and Jesus Christ into swear words, and they are the holiest words in our language left on their own. Once more, we attempt to clean the outside of the cup rather than dealing with what's on the inside. This is what "social justice" does to pervert actual justice, which only begins when we admit we are all sinners in need of a Savior. That the system isn't the problem, but WE are the problem. And we create all the systems.
This is why I am focused on this debate. It appears to be a sideshow, but really it speaks to the heart of the societal scam(s) that has us imploding in the first place.
It applies to the pieces of human shit who violently lash out at random innocent folks.
Maybe it's because I'm an old school nerd, but honestly whenever I hear or read the word thug the first thing that pops in my head is the henchmen dudes who were hired by the main villains in the old Batman TV show. That, or purse-snatchers and muggers from old superhero comics.