Defining the term 'Thug'.

[laughing dog]

IMO, acting like assholes does not necessarily make a group a bunch of thugs.

And they may not be violent, but shoving Bernie Sanders off stage and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

IMO, acting like an asshole does not necessarily make one a thug.

Shouting for the death of cops does indeed make you a thug. The only reason for that is to be able to commit crimes without being held accountable for your actions.

Shouting is not usually a crime.

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

Shouting death to cops is neither inciting a riot nor creating a dangerous stampede.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?

No, but that does not make the shouter a thug.

And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

You have not shown a double standard.

 

[LordKiran]

IMO, acting like assholes does not necessarily make a group a bunch of thugs.

And they may not be violent, but shoving Bernie Sanders off stage and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

IMO, acting like an asshole does not necessarily make one a thug.

Shouting for the death of cops does indeed make you a thug. The only reason for that is to be able to commit crimes without being held accountable for your actions.

Shouting is not usually a crime.

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?



And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

As for me, I will have none of it.

Also, is this really all you have? Some minor instances of unrest where nobody got hurt and no major crimes were committed? For comparison's sake, the old KKK routinely burned down entire communities and committed high profile murder in an attempt to intimidate and instill fear in their victims so they wouldn't challenge them. There's your REAL thugs. There's your REAL criminal organization.

 

[Rayschism]

IMO, acting like assholes does not necessarily make a group a bunch of thugs.

And they may not be violent, but shoving Bernie Sanders off stage and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

IMO, acting like an asshole does not necessarily make one a thug.

Shouting for the death of cops does indeed make you a thug. The only reason for that is to be able to commit crimes without being held accountable for your actions.

Shouting is not usually a crime.

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?



And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

As for me, I will have none of it.

Also, is this really all you have? Some minor instances of unrest where nobody got hurt and no major crimes were committed? For comparison's sake, the old KKK routinely burned down entire communities and committed high profile murder in an attempt to intimidate and instill fear in their victims so they wouldn't challenge them. There's your REAL thugs. There's your REAL criminal organization.

The KKK were just shouting and no real harm was done.

 

[LordKiran]

IMO, acting like assholes does not necessarily make a group a bunch of thugs.

And they may not be violent, but shoving Bernie Sanders off stage and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

IMO, acting like an asshole does not necessarily make one a thug.

Shouting for the death of cops does indeed make you a thug. The only reason for that is to be able to commit crimes without being held accountable for your actions.

Shouting is not usually a crime.

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?



And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

As for me, I will have none of it.

Also, is this really all you have? Some minor instances of unrest where nobody got hurt and no major crimes were committed? For comparison's sake, the old KKK routinely burned down entire communities and committed high profile murder in an attempt to intimidate and instill fear in their victims so they wouldn't challenge them. There's your REAL thugs. There's your REAL criminal organization.

The KKK were just shouting and no real harm was done.

If you're implying that BLM is an organization that condones acts of terroristic violence in the pursuit of its goals, then I'm going to need to see some proof of this.

 

[Rayschism]

IMO, acting like assholes does not necessarily make a group a bunch of thugs.

And they may not be violent, but shoving Bernie Sanders off stage and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

IMO, acting like an asshole does not necessarily make one a thug.

Shouting for the death of cops does indeed make you a thug. The only reason for that is to be able to commit crimes without being held accountable for your actions.

Shouting is not usually a crime.

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?



And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

As for me, I will have none of it.

Also, is this really all you have? Some minor instances of unrest where nobody got hurt and no major crimes were committed? For comparison's sake, the old KKK routinely burned down entire communities and committed high profile murder in an attempt to intimidate and instill fear in their victims so they wouldn't challenge them. There's your REAL thugs. There's your REAL criminal organization.

The KKK were just shouting and no real harm was done.

If you're implying that BLM is an organization that condones acts of terroristic violence in the pursuit of its goals, then I'm going to need to see some proof of this.

Here's your sign:







Deny it all you want to.

 

[LordKiran]

IMO, acting like assholes does not necessarily make a group a bunch of thugs.

And they may not be violent, but shoving Bernie Sanders off stage and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

IMO, acting like an asshole does not necessarily make one a thug.

Shouting for the death of cops does indeed make you a thug. The only reason for that is to be able to commit crimes without being held accountable for your actions.

Shouting is not usually a crime.

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?



And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

As for me, I will have none of it.

Also, is this really all you have? Some minor instances of unrest where nobody got hurt and no major crimes were committed? For comparison's sake, the old KKK routinely burned down entire communities and committed high profile murder in an attempt to intimidate and instill fear in their victims so they wouldn't challenge them. There's your REAL thugs. There's your REAL criminal organization.

The KKK were just shouting and no real harm was done.

If you're implying that BLM is an organization that condones acts of terroristic violence in the pursuit of its goals, then I'm going to need to see some proof of this.

Here's your sign:







Deny it all you want to.

People chanting does not fit any reasonable definition of "Terroristic Violence"

One man killing some people is not indicative of the entire group condoning his violence.

Deny it all you want.

 

[Rayschism]

IMO, acting like assholes does not necessarily make a group a bunch of thugs.

And they may not be violent, but shoving Bernie Sanders off stage and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

IMO, acting like an asshole does not necessarily make one a thug.

Shouting for the death of cops does indeed make you a thug. The only reason for that is to be able to commit crimes without being held accountable for your actions.

Shouting is not usually a crime.

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?



And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

As for me, I will have none of it.

Also, is this really all you have? Some minor instances of unrest where nobody got hurt and no major crimes were committed? For comparison's sake, the old KKK routinely burned down entire communities and committed high profile murder in an attempt to intimidate and instill fear in their victims so they wouldn't challenge them. There's your REAL thugs. There's your REAL criminal organization.

The KKK were just shouting and no real harm was done.

If you're implying that BLM is an organization that condones acts of terroristic violence in the pursuit of its goals, then I'm going to need to see some proof of this.

Here's your sign:







Deny it all you want to.

People chanting does not fit any reasonable definition of "Terroristic Violence"

One man killing some people is not indicative of the entire group condoning his violence.

Deny it all you want.

Unless they're white KKK.

Deny it all you want.

I have no more to say on this matter.

 

[Mumbles]

Here's your sign:

Not Black Lives Matter. The actual group, the Trayvon Martin Organizing Committee, was condemned by the group that organized the daytime march, as well as the family of Martin.

For reference, here's time-lapse footage of the actual March organized by Hands Up United. Note the much larger size of the march, and the daylight.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQwITHmNYSw[/YOUTUBE]

This one is legit - but the BLM chapter involved claimed that the police were joining in on the chant.

BLM didn't even have a Dallas chapter at the time, and the shooter condemned them for their lack of violence, stating that he was "upset with police shootings, and upset with BLM." Also, he shot repeatedly into a crowd of peaceful marchers, which should have been your big hint that he didn't care much about them.

Deny it all you want to.

Actually, you're claiming that random people are members of Black Lives Matter when they aren't, so pointing out that you're posting falsehoods is the correct response. And since you only one for three when it comes to so much as recognizing a BLM activity, well, you're basically way off.

So I'll simply repeat my assertion - Black Lives Matter is neither entirely black people, nor at all violent, and so they fit neither definition of the word "thug" given here.

 

[Arctish]

Rayschism, If you'd like to add a third definition of 'thug' please post it so we can discuss it. The definitions we have describe individuals and aren't applicable to groups.

 

[LordKiran]

IMO, acting like assholes does not necessarily make a group a bunch of thugs.

And they may not be violent, but shoving Bernie Sanders off stage and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

IMO, acting like an asshole does not necessarily make one a thug.

Shouting for the death of cops does indeed make you a thug. The only reason for that is to be able to commit crimes without being held accountable for your actions.

Shouting is not usually a crime.

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?



And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

As for me, I will have none of it.

Also, is this really all you have? Some minor instances of unrest where nobody got hurt and no major crimes were committed? For comparison's sake, the old KKK routinely burned down entire communities and committed high profile murder in an attempt to intimidate and instill fear in their victims so they wouldn't challenge them. There's your REAL thugs. There's your REAL criminal organization.

The KKK were just shouting and no real harm was done.

If you're implying that BLM is an organization that condones acts of terroristic violence in the pursuit of its goals, then I'm going to need to see some proof of this.

Here's your sign:







Deny it all you want to.

People chanting does not fit any reasonable definition of "Terroristic Violence"

One man killing some people is not indicative of the entire group condoning his violence.

Deny it all you want.

Unless they're white KKK.

Deny it all you want.

I have no more to say on this matter.

Okay hot-shit, slow your roll.

Do you need me to provide examples of Terroristic violence by the KKK in the earlier half of the last century or are you just trolling at this point?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not certain. Disrupting Milo seems pretty darn rational to me.

Not if you believe in freedom of speech and choice.

I believe in free speech and choice... and shutting Milo up.

 

[Arctish]

these are thugs

There's been an interesting development in this story: the teenager in the video turned himself in to police.

The unnamed teenager turned himself in Monday afternoon. He has been charged with battery of a person 65 years of age or older, officials said.

"I messed up and I have to own up to it," officials say the teenager told them.

Does this development and his reported statement to the police change your view of him? And how does he compare to George Zimmerman in the thug category? Is Zimmerman more of a thug, less of a thug, or as much of a thug?

What about Trayvon Martin? More, less, or just as much?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This website doesn't censor the word nigger?

I'm very surprised.

I don't think there's anything that's censored.

At one point somethingawful was censored, but that was because people would innocently hotlink their site and the result would live up to the URL. There are watchdogs that will bark at you for various structural errors in posting but the intent is to avoid the problems, not to censor. Mismatching QUOTE tags will cause it to refuse to post but you're still in the editor to fix it. Some bad URLs (common culprit--a ^c^v of material where a URL was displayed in an abbreviated form--the result looks just like the original but the link doesn't work) will cause a warning that unfortunately is too late to actually stop it from being posted.

You're expected to avoid posting NSFW imagery without warning. To drop a nude woman into this post would be wrong. To put the same image into the thread of beautiful women (which is marked as NSFW) is fine. Likewise, a link that's going to lead to someplace NSFW should be marked as such. This is not censorship, but a recognition of the fact that people might be at work.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is another correct usage of the term, from another unrelated thread:

Simply wearing a mask at a protest does not make anyone a thug because there is nothing inherently violent about wearing a mask. Wearing a mask and in order to engage in violence, that makes you a thug. But to simply wear a mask, in and of itself, does not.

In practice those who wear masks to protests usually engage in illegal actions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Terrorism is about a political goal. I think I prefer my second definition a bit more. Thugs are thugs because they can get away with it.

I offer an alternative definition:

A "thug" is someone who believes in the morality of "might makes right" and seeks to impose his own will, whatever that happens to be, on other people in his life through force, threats, intimidation or violence.

Consider the following:

Put another way: a "thug" is someone who achieves his ends by bullying others into cooperating with him or physically dominating them if they refuse. It's the dimension of violence -- implicit or in action -- that defines the term. That's why the Gestapo and the Klan are often branded as "thugs" and even "terrorists" while police officers, who NORMALLY try to use words to resolve conflicts, rarely do.

I disagree. To me an implicit part of "thug" is the casual nature of the violence. You're talking about studied violence--criminal but not thuggish in my opinion.

The Gestapo I would agree were thugs--not because of their overall strategy, but the violence you were likely to suffer if you crossed them at all.

"Terrorist" is a very different term than "thug" in my book, certainly not merely an extreme version of "thug".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

Most of BLM isn't violent--can't be thugs. Beware that most of the violence is not BLM, but rather scumbags taking advantage of the situation. BLM is guilty of nothing more than being misguided.

Note the "Black Bloc" is not about their skin color, but rather their attire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?



And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

As for me, I will have none of it.

The problem here is that you are dividing it up into "just shouting"/"being a thug". The reality isn't binary.

While I believe those who incite violence should be criminally responsible for the result (I'd be inclined towards something like those who incite an illegal act should get a punishment of say 10% of whatever is given to those who acted on the words) that doesn't make them a thug. There are other forms of wrongdoing, "thug" is not a synonym for "criminal".

 

[laughing dog]

In practice those who wear masks to protests usually engage in illegal actions.

Please provide the link to the evidence that supports your claim. And, an illegal action does not necessarily make one a thug.

 

[Rayschism]

Not if you believe in freedom of speech and choice.

I believe in free speech and choice... and shutting Milo up.

Nice sarcasm.

 

[Rayschism]

Inciting a riot is. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not? What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

And if this were a personal thing, such as say if someone were calling for your death because of the color of your skin, would you then say it was just shouting?



And there in lies the double standard. It is always okay for one person, but never okay for the other. Because reasons.

As for me, I will have none of it.

The problem here is that you are dividing it up into "just shouting"/"being a thug". The reality isn't binary.

While I believe those who incite violence should be criminally responsible for the result (I'd be inclined towards something like those who incite an illegal act should get a punishment of say 10% of whatever is given to those who acted on the words) that doesn't make them a thug. There are other forms of wrongdoing, "thug" is not a synonym for "criminal".

There is a huge difference between being loud while expressing an opinion and a peace protest than being violent, destructive, and disruptive.

Protest are supposed to be peaceful, not violent, disruptive, and destructive. Those three are criminal acts. And those three are thugs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I believe in free speech and choice... and shutting Milo up.

Nice sarcasm.

Wasn't being sarcastic. I think there are limits on free speech. Being an absolute douchebag SJW troll exceeds my lmiits.