Atlanta-area police shoot dead unarmed, naked African-American man

[Crazy Eddie]

I consider thugs to be people who routinely use violence to get their way...

Unless they...

openly admitted to the illegal use of violence--something I very much doubt a non-thug would do.

So if they DON'T routinely use violence to get their way, all they have to do is ADMIT to using violence one time and thus show that they belong to

a culture where that is acceptable behavior.

But just a minute ago you said that being a thug is a matter of behavior, not culture. It depends on whether or not you USE violence, not whether or not you APPROVE of violence.

Whatever you CLAIM to be your definition, the way you actually use the term is the racist "black culture is thug culture" dog whistle bullshit we've been seeing for the past 30 years. You are not clever, you are not subtle, and you are not fooling anyone.

While the one did use violence I don't get the impression that this was a normal thing for them to do.

And yet none of the PROTESTERS brought firearms to the rally. What kind of thug, accustomed to using violence to get his way, deliberately goes out in a public place without his weapons?

 

[Malintent]

Wait, what? how we get here from there??

By making it socially unacceptable for white people to call black and brown people the "N" word.

OHH.. the URBAN dictionary... Like in what black people call things? well duh.. everything is racist against black people, according to black people... who themselves cannot possibly ever be racist in anything they ever say... so, well, ya..whatever

So black people are the only people living in urban areas? Are the only people who speak in idioms within certain situations and among members of a particular group? I did not know that. I will have to let the people I work with know that.

So the Urban dictionary is only for people that live in Urban areas? See, I can play the "this word can mean something else, so you must mean whatever I say" game.

 

[Malintent]

"Thugs" are not usually black... They are usually Italian.

Honestly, I have no idea what movies you guys are watching... Black Thug.. hilarious.

The word you are looking for is Gangster. Black Gangster / White Thug. It's pretty easy to remember.

What's the fucking difference, anyway.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good point... some of them are only HALF black.

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

I don't see anybody refusing to apply it to certain races.

Other than yourself. It's again a glaring contradiction of your stated belief that the Jamar Clarke potesters were "thugs" but the people who SHOT them weren't. You expanded the definition of "thug" to include "people whose violent acts get posted on youtube" in order to handwave away the only significant difference that would explain the selective application of the label: to be a thug, one must be both violent and black. A violent white man cannot, in your mind, be a thug; you will invent ANY excuse for why his violence was justified.

In this case, the agitators who started the fight -- and later OPENED FIRE on the protesters -- were justified because apparently being shoved out of an area is equivalent to kidnapping which is almost as bad as murder. So by this logic:
Being shoved by niggers = attempted murder, therefore response is justifiable violence
Being shot by white people = self defense, therefore "thugs had it coming"

I consider thugs to be people who routinely use violence to get their way.

The protesters openly admitted to the illegal use of violence--something I very much doubt a non-thug would do. They're living in a culture where that is acceptable behavior.

The agitators, however, seem like idiots who were not expecting to be driven off by force and one of them got scared when they were being chased by a violent mob. While the one did use violence I don't get the impression that this was a normal thing for them to do.

Your description of the situation is wrong--he did not fire because he was shoved. He fired because he was afraid of what the pack of thugs chasing him would do if they caught him.

But why "thugs". Probably should just call them "animals".

 

[Sarpedon]

Can we not waste time arguing about the meaning of words? Words have no meaning, they are just noises we grunt at each other.

It is a fact that in this particular context, the noise 'thug' is used to refer to young black males. Whatever the noise might mean in other contexts is irrelevant, and talk about what it 'really' means is meaningless.

I shouldn't have to remind you that if you are in search of the 'real' meaning of the noise 'thug,' that the original meaning was a member of an anti-british extremist hindu cult in the 19th century. So let us brush aside these trivial discussions of the 'real' meaning of the word and simply accept the fact of the meaning it has in the given context.

 

[Derec]

It is a fact that in this particular context, the noise 'thug' is used to refer to young black males.

No, it does not.

 

[laughing dog]

It is a fact that in this particular context, the noise 'thug' is used to refer to young black males.

No, it does not.

Given the actual context and the refusal of at least one poster to use the term on white people, it is a fact.

 

[RavenSky]

I consider thugs to be people who routinely use violence to get their way.

The protesters openly admitted to the illegal use of violence--something I very much doubt a non-thug would do.

Provide evidence for this claim (Oh that's right, you NEVER provide evidence for your claims)

They're living in a culture where that is acceptable behavior.

There's that "culture" claim again. What "culture" would you be referring to, and how do you know any of the people are of that "culture"

The agitators, however, seem like idiots who were not expecting to be driven off by force and one of them got scared when they were being chased by a violent mob. While the one did use violence I don't get the impression that this was a normal thing for them to do.

of course you don't

Your description of the situation is wrong--he did not fire because he was shoved. He fired because he was afraid of what the pack of thugs chasing him would do if they caught him.

YOUR description of the situation is wrong because you insist on calling people a "pack of thugs" for no reason

 

[Godless Raven]

I'll chalk another one up for deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and goalpost moving. He wasn't just naked, he was naked in a public parking lot, charging armed cops, which are all highly relevant facts that determine what the cops has reason to suspect and fear.

I'm with Frikki on this one. If American police officers are unable to subdue a naked crazy guy in a parking lot without the use of a firearm, that's because they're a bunch of pussies.

Really, at this point it's just a statement of fact. Any possible argument FOR the use of firearms in this situation pretty much boils down to "I got scared!" You can't handle someone disagreeing with you, so you hide behind your badge. If he doesn't respect the badge, hide behind your gun. If he doesn't respect the gun, shoot him till he's not scary anymore.

Well, keep in mind these are the same people who find 12 year olds terrifying.

You know, cowards.

Basically.

I don't think you'd want to put either of your police forces against the American police in an armed fight. Your police would shit themselves and the only "pussies" would be the ones inside their panties.

It's better to solve any situation without violence...but I don't think "pussies" would be the correct word here. Of course, you can try resolve everything with a back massage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it does not.

Given the actual context and the refusal of at least one poster to use the term on white people, it is a fact.

Nobody has refused to use it on white people. Some of us have refused to use it on certain white people that we do not think are thugs. "Thug" is not a generic term for wrongdoer!

 

[RavenSky]

Given the actual context and the refusal of at least one poster to use the term on white people, it is a fact.

Nobody has refused to use it on white people. Some of us have refused to use it on certain white people that we do not think are thugs. "Thug" is not a generic term for wrongdoer!

"certain white people"? A handful of white guys that brag beforehand about their intent to create a confrontation, who travel out of their own neighborhood to go to a rally they do not support, go there with guns, purposely get into the faces of rally organizers with the expressed intent of causing trouble... these "certain white people" are not "thugs" in your opinion.

You refuse to use it for ANY white people under ANY circumstances. You are correct that you do not use it as a generic term for "wrongdoer" - because you use it to only describe a certain "culture" of people (that you know nothing about except the color of their skin)

 

[Derec]

You refuse to use it for ANY white people under ANY circumstances. You are correct that you do not use it as a generic term for "wrongdoer" - because you use it to only describe a certain "culture" of people (that you know nothing about except the color of their skin)

You have not shown this. You would haave to show Loren calling blacks thugs and refusing to call whites thugs under similar circumstances. For example, if a group of #BLM activists staged a stunt similar to what happened at #4thprecinctshutdown at a Trump rally and Loren called them thugs you'd have a point.
Of if Loren called Mario Woods a thug but refused to call a white gangbanger, robber and a stabbist a thug you'd likewise have a point.

 

[laughing dog]

Given the actual context and the refusal of at least one poster to use the term on white people, it is a fact.

Nobody has refused to use it on white people. Some of us have refused to use it on certain white people that we do not think are thugs. "Thug" is not a generic term for wrongdoer!

Your willingness to call black people who you know nothing about and who you mischaracterize as "thugs" while refusing to call white people who meet your definition of "thug" rebuts your bs. Add in your willingness to say that Tamir Rice learned thuggish behavior from his mother (because she is a drug dealer), and it is obvious that your use of the term "thug" is racially tinged. You may be fooling yourself with your ridiculous responses, but you are not fooling most people.

 

[Malintent]

Can we not waste time arguing about the meaning of words? Words have no meaning, they are just noises we grunt at each other.

It is a fact that in this particular context, the noise 'thug' is used to refer to young black males. Whatever the noise might mean in other contexts is irrelevant, and talk about what it 'really' means is meaningless.

I shouldn't have to remind you that if you are in search of the 'real' meaning of the noise 'thug,' that the original meaning was a member of an anti-british extremist hindu cult in the 19th century. So let us brush aside these trivial discussions of the 'real' meaning of the word and simply accept the fact of the meaning it has in the given context.

in this context, thug means "person threatening violence". color never came into it. that is the fact you are sorely missing.

 

[Malintent]

Nobody has refused to use it on white people. Some of us have refused to use it on certain white people that we do not think are thugs. "Thug" is not a generic term for wrongdoer!

"certain white people"? A handful of white guys that brag beforehand about their intent to create a confrontation, who travel out of their own neighborhood to go to a rally they do not support, go there with guns, purposely get into the faces of rally organizers with the expressed intent of causing trouble... these "certain white people" are not "thugs" in your opinion.

You refuse to use it for ANY white people under ANY circumstances. You are correct that you do not use it as a generic term for "wrongdoer" - because you use it to only describe a certain "culture" of people (that you know nothing about except the color of their skin)

The people you just described are of a generic form of "troublemaker". If it is the case that this is what they routinely do, especially focused around violence, then Thug would work.

It is ignorant to imply 'thug' is a racial term. that is just what uppity niggers say. (now THAT was racist - not "some thug threatened violence" - that is not racist).

Stop with the 'micro aggression' claims that no word is politically acceptable cause someone asserts it is non PC in some abstract way.

Balck people have sufficient evidence to claim racist things happen to them all over the place. It harms their position of victim status when completely ridiculous claims like this are made. I suppose he ain;t a thug because he Dindu Nuffin! right?

 

[KeepTalking]

Can we not waste time arguing about the meaning of words? Words have no meaning, they are just noises we grunt at each other.

It is a fact that in this particular context, the noise 'thug' is used to refer to young black males. Whatever the noise might mean in other contexts is irrelevant, and talk about what it 'really' means is meaningless.

I shouldn't have to remind you that if you are in search of the 'real' meaning of the noise 'thug,' that the original meaning was a member of an anti-british extremist hindu cult in the 19th century. So let us brush aside these trivial discussions of the 'real' meaning of the word and simply accept the fact of the meaning it has in the given context.

in this context, thug means "person threatening violence". color never came into it. that is the fact you are sorely missing.

Color never comes into it until one examines the color of the person being called a "thug", which, with the posters in question, is always a black person. Show me one, just one, instance of any of these people calling a white person a "thug", and your point just might be valid. That is what you are sorely missing.

 

[laughing dog]

"certain white people"? A handful of white guys that brag beforehand about their intent to create a confrontation, who travel out of their own neighborhood to go to a rally they do not support, go there with guns, purposely get into the faces of rally organizers with the expressed intent of causing trouble... these "certain white people" are not "thugs" in your opinion.

You refuse to use it for ANY white people under ANY circumstances. You are correct that you do not use it as a generic term for "wrongdoer" - because you use it to only describe a certain "culture" of people (that you know nothing about except the color of their skin)

The people you just described are of a generic form of "troublemaker". If it is the case that this is what they routinely do, especially focused around violence, then Thug would work.

It is ignorant to imply 'thug' is a racial term. that is just what uppity niggers say. (now THAT was racist - not "some thug threatened violence" - that is not racist).

Stop with the 'micro aggression' claims that no word is politically acceptable cause someone asserts it is non PC in some abstract way.

Balck people have sufficient evidence to claim racist things happen to them all over the place. It harms their position of victim status when completely ridiculous claims like this are made. I suppose he ain;t a thug because he Dindu Nuffin! right?

It appears you are posting in the wrong thread. This not the "Babylon Straw man" thread.

 

[Sarpedon]

Can we cut out that 'Dindu' crap? It would really help your argument that you are the victim of PC 'microaggression' over your use of allegedly racially loaded terms if you wouldn't then turn around and use that fake dialect shit. Or is this just another instance of your bizarrely attempting to exonerate yourself from the accusation of using racially charged terms by using even more racially charged terms?

 

[ksen]

b-b-but guys, derec dindu nuffin. he good boy.

 

[ksen]

or should i say, good goy?