Defining the term 'Thug'.

[whichphilosophy]

No. He was responding to the same thing I'm describing. I refer to the GOP and other knuckle draggers as "thugs" for the same reason. The only reason that word is so popular is not because of Obama by any stretch of even the stupidest right wing authoritarian follower's weak imagination. It's a dog whistle, a shortcut to thinking, for fearful bigots who can't muster up the frontal lobe power to adapt to a tribe of seven billion. Nobody would be using it otherwise.

Not sure I get it. In your original post, you seem to be saying there are two definitions of thug, as follows:

1) Modern day definition of thug: Black skinned and nothing else.
2) Old school definition of thug: A bully, but the only people who mean it this way are bullies themselves with ignorant fear and lacking empathy.

So which one is Obama again? Number one or number two?

I am not aware of any dictionary definition which states a thug is someone who is black skinned.

I checked the 'urban dictionary for any slang definition

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thug

thug
As Tupac defined it, a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life. A thug is NOT a gangster. Look up gangster and gangsta. Not even CLOSE, my friend.

Unless there is another definition, Obama is neither.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I am not aware of any dictionary definition which states a thug is someone who is black skinned.

I am not aware of any dictionary definition which states a "fag" or an "anon" is a poster on 4chan, or which states a "mod" is short for "moderator" on a message board.

If you were ever on a wrestling team somewhere in the midwest you probably know what I mean when I say "I shot his far leg like five times. He's a total fish." There's no dictionary definition that will tell you what a "fish" is or what "shot his outside leg" even looks like or why it matters. This is because dictionaries do not define words, PEOPLE do.

The word thug is nothing to do with whether a person is an African American or not as it defines this as a violent person especially a criminals which was borrowed from Hindi which referred to a particular type of criminal...

Just like the word "nigger" is nothing to do with whether or not a person is African American or not, since it actually a distortion/slang of the word "negro" which is spanish for "black." It can, broadly, refer to any person with dark enough skin and would not accurately describe a black or african american of lighter complexion.

OTOH, dictionaries do not capture the full meaning of word usage in every day life. You can walk up to a black person and say "Hello, nigger" and he probably isn't going to just assume you are calling him "black person" in an odd southern dialect. Context matters: how is the word being used, who is using it, and to whom is it directed?

There are a lot of words with different meanings depending on the context. You can call someone a "cuck" in one sense meaning "someone who likes to watch his wife fuck other guys." in another context, you're calling him a race traitor and/or a sellout to the Jewish Global Conspiracy. It's one of those things that it depends on who you're talking to and what you're talking about.

There are posters on this board who use "thug" as a code word. Among some of these same posters that word shares a subject matter and an implication with the words "dindu," or "inner city." It's entirely likely that these people would describe themselves as "redpilled" in a similar context; they are not, mind you, talking about their sleep medication.

 

[untermensche]

There are big thugs and small.

Okay, just making sure. Even if the powerful 'thugs' of the world are in some way responsible for the rise of uninfluential street thuggery, the people we all come to regard as thugs because of their behavior and demeanor are still quite worthy of the label.

They are not nearly as dangerous or distasteful.

They are more something to pity, an animal driven to extremes by inhumane circumstances.

 

[thebeave]

Not sure I get it. In your original post, you seem to be saying there are two definitions of thug, as follows:

1) Modern day definition of thug: Black skinned and nothing else.
2) Old school definition of thug: A bully, but the only people who mean it this way are bullies themselves with ignorant fear and lacking empathy.

So which one is Obama again? Number one or number two?

I am not aware of any dictionary definition which states a thug is someone who is black skinned.

I checked the 'urban dictionary for any slang definition

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thug

thug
As Tupac defined it, a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life. A thug is NOT a gangster. Look up gangster and gangsta. Not even CLOSE, my friend.

Unless there is another definition, Obama is neither.

I think I bungled my question. I never meant to say Obama is some kind of thug. He's about as far away from a thug as you can get. I meant to ask which definition of the two definitions of "thug" was Obama referring to when he called the Baltimore rioters "thugs".

 

[Mumbles]

I think I bungled my question. I never meant to say Obama is some kind of thug. He's about as far away from a thug as you can get. I meant to ask which definition of the two definitions of "thug" was Obama referring to when he called the Baltimore rioters "thugs".

For reference - Obama got this one wrong, since the riots weren't weren't started by "thugs", but rather by police who blocked high school students from going home, and then allegedly began abusing them because they weren't going home. Note that, although there is footage of what happened, nobody is allowed to see it because of "security".

 

[fast]

Okay, just making sure. Even if the powerful 'thugs' of the world are in some way responsible for the rise of uninfluential street thuggery, the people we all come to regard as thugs because of their behavior and demeanor are still quite worthy of the label.

They are not nearly as dangerous or distasteful.

They are more something to pity, an animal driven to extremes by inhumane circumstances.

That may be so, and if trying to put things in perspective from a broad and more encompassing perspective, there might not be much to argue with, yet when in the throws of a situation when confronted with an effect-me-now thug, then before me I have an individual sentient being directly and fully responsible for his current behavior. It might very well be the case that what I see wouldn't be before me to see had not it been for big-league thuggery, but when the threat of violence rears its ugly head, my attention isn't swept away to far off land but rather and quite narrowly to the immediate threat.

I'm not saying the big picture perspective is without merit. If seeing such truth for what it is can lead us to make changes and alter its effect, then great, but my condemnation for the wrongdoers amongst us cannot be muddied by being too sensitive for how their plight came to be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Thug" means the same thing it always has in English - namely, a violent, criminal person.

I think it has to include an element of casual violence.

An assassin is violent and criminal but they may not be a thug.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not sure I get it. In your original post, you seem to be saying there are two definitions of thug, as follows:

1) Modern day definition of thug: Black skinned and nothing else.
2) Old school definition of thug: A bully, but the only people who mean it this way are bullies themselves with ignorant fear and lacking empathy.

So which one is Obama again? Number one or number two?

Thank you. Please let me clarify. The word "thug" would not make headlines or be uttered publicly by politicians or news media if it weren't a dog whistle for a particular kind of listener.

It doesn't need to be a dog whistle to be used by law-and-order politicians.

You're looking too hard for racism--when you look hard enough you find it whether it exists or not.

He didn't really need to be white, but I've been watching American media my whole life and since that was mostly whiteness as far as they eye can see, and most characters were white good or bad, it would never have occurred to me to imagine my mental "thug" to be black for any meaningful reason if not specified. But now it's been suggested repeatedly and in ways that right wing authoritarians can't be aware of because that would require some interest in secular science as well as the capacity for insight into one's own cognitive mechanisms. Hint: Manipulated associations with images and phrases coupled with hijacking your prejudices and fears goes a long way toward creating your worldview underneath the radar of conscious examination.

You don't attack reality by trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

Thugs are now black people, or more accurately, black people are thugs, in the minds of right wing authoritarian followers with microphones and right wing ears among the voting audience.

No. Thugs are violent criminals. They are disproportionately black, the term does not specify their race.

 

[untermensche]

They are not nearly as dangerous or distasteful.

They are more something to pity, an animal driven to extremes by inhumane circumstances.

That may be so, and if trying to put things in perspective from a broad and more encompassing perspective, there might not be much to argue with, yet when in the throws of a situation when confronted with an effect-me-now thug, then before me I have an individual sentient being directly and fully responsible for his current behavior. It might very well be the case that what I see wouldn't be before me to see had not it been for big-league thuggery, but when the threat of violence rears its ugly head, my attention isn't swept away to far off land but rather and quite narrowly to the immediate threat.

I'm not saying the big picture perspective is without merit. If seeing such truth for what it is can lead us to make changes and alter its effect, then great, but my condemnation for the wrongdoers amongst us cannot be muddied by being too sensitive for how their plight came to be.

The victim always places more importance on the perpetrator.

But why should we argue from the point of view of the victim?

And if we do why not argue from the point of view of some innocent Iraqi dragged from his home by the US military and taken to some prison and tortured?

 

[laughing dog]

No. Thugs are violent criminals. They are disproportionately black, the term does not specify their race.

You claim that "thug" is a lifestyle not a single act. Now you claim that thugs are violent criminals and that they are disproportionately black. But you have yet to substantiate that claim with actually data. Why is that?

 

[Arctish]

Well, we now have a few different definitions of thug, and a couple of variations that contradict each other.

One definition is based on the Hindu origin of the word, which is etymologically valid but not really useful. The only times I've heard someone use 'thug' to refer to a thuggee was when they were discussing where the word 'thug' comes from. So I'm not going to include the thug = thuggee definition here.

So that leaves two definitions:

1. a violent person, especially a violent criminal who commits crimes such as robbery, assault, battery, and vandalism; someone with a history of resorting to violence.

2. a racist term conveying contempt for blacks, especially black males; a euphemism for ni**er.

There is some dispute over whether it only describes persons who act impulsively or if it can be used to describe persons who act with premeditation. Also, it's not clear how drug dealers fit the description of 'thug' (as some folks suggest) when selling drugs isn't an act of violence.

Anyone else have a definition to offer? Or wants to comment on the premeditation vs. acting impulsively question?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, we now have a few different definitions of thug, and a couple of variations that contradict each other.

One definition is based on the Hindu origin of the word, which is etymologically valid but not really useful. The only times I've heard someone use 'thug' to refer to a thuggee was when they were discussing where the word 'thug' comes from. So I'm not going to include the thug = thuggee definition here.

So that leaves two definitions:

1. a violent person, especially a violent criminal who commits crimes such as robbery, assault, battery, and vandalism; someone with a history of resorting to violence.

2. a racist term conveying contempt for blacks, especially black males; a euphemism for ni**er.

There is some dispute over whether it only describes persons who act impulsively or if it can be used to describe persons who act with premeditation. Also, it's not clear how drug dealers fit the description of 'thug' (as some folks suggest) when selling drugs isn't an act of violence.

Anyone else have a definition to offer? Or wants to comment on the premeditation vs. acting impulsively question?

Another definition would be the one celebrated in "Thug" culture. I'm an old man when it comes to this street culture stuff, and a foreigner to the USA, but isn't "Thug Life" a thing down there? Is that where the racial component comes in?

 

[Derec]

2. a racist term conveying contempt for blacks, especially black males; a euphemism for ni**er.

While that allegation is bandied about a lot, I have yet to see any evidence that such use is widespread at all.

Also, it's not clear how drug dealers fit the description of 'thug' (as some folks suggest) when selling drugs isn't an act of violence.

It depends. If you are selling drugs queitly in your social circle or something, that's one thing.
If you are selling on the streets, there is a high potential for violence due to turf wars etc. and thus street drug dealers must be thugs. Or they won't survive long.

 

[RavenSky]

Also, it's not clear how drug dealers fit the description of 'thug' (as some folks suggest) when selling drugs isn't an act of violence.

It depends. If you are selling drugs queitly in your social circle or something, that's one thing.
If you are selling on the streets, there is a high potential for violence due to turf wars etc. and thus street drug dealers must be thugs. Or they won't survive long.

 

[ronburgundy]

It depends. If you are selling drugs queitly in your social circle or something, that's one thing.
If you are selling on the streets, there is a high potential for violence due to turf wars etc. and thus street drug dealers must be thugs. Or they won't survive long.

What are you objecting to here? The idea that a large % street dealers are armed and engage in violent crimes or that there are a sub-type of low-level dealer (e.g. pot users that sell to their friends) that are much less likely to be armed and involved in violent crime?

Note this study showing that crack dealers are 10 times more likely to carry a gun than people arrested for other things, and twice as likely as other other drug dealers who don't deal crack, and even twice as likely as convicts that have been shot at by other criminals but are not themselves a drug dealer. In contrast, drug use has no relationship to carrying a gun, if the user is not also a dealer.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We have a minor issue in another thread in which people are discussing the term 'thug' and how it is used. I think having a clear, mutually agreed upon definition would be helpful. So, what do you think the term 'thug' means? How would you define it?

Thugs: professional criminals, devotees of Kali, who robbed and murdered travelers in northern India until the mid-1800s.
EB

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So that leaves two definitions:

1. a violent person, especially a violent criminal who commits crimes such as robbery, assault, battery, and vandalism; someone with a history of resorting to violence.

2. a racist term conveying contempt for blacks, especially black males; a euphemism for ni**er.

There is some dispute over whether it only describes persons who act impulsively or if it can be used to describe persons who act with premeditation. Also, it's not clear how drug dealers fit the description of 'thug' (as some folks suggest) when selling drugs isn't an act of violence.

Anyone else have a definition to offer? Or wants to comment on the premeditation vs. acting impulsively question?

I completely disagree with #2. While there is a racial imbalance to those that are thugs the term says nothing about race.

I would also not automatically describe a drug dealer as a thug--thug specifically refers to violent acts, not merely criminal acts. Now, in practice an inner city drug dealer is most likely a thug because the ones that aren't will be displaced by the ones that are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What are you objecting to here? The idea that a large % street dealers are armed and engage in violent crimes or that there are a sub-type of low-level dealer (e.g. pot users that sell to their friends) that are much less likely to be armed and involved in violent crime?

Note this study showing that crack dealers are 10 times more likely to carry a gun than people arrested for other things, and twice as likely as other other drug dealers who don't deal crack, and even twice as likely as convicts that have been shot at by other criminals but are not themselves a drug dealer. In contrast, drug use has no relationship to carrying a gun, if the user is not also a dealer.

And note that this actually understates the guns.

Sometimes the guy with the drugs and the security function is split--the dealer is unarmed but has guards nearby. It reduces the charges if they get busted.

 

[Bronzeage]

So that leaves two definitions:

1. a violent person, especially a violent criminal who commits crimes such as robbery, assault, battery, and vandalism; someone with a history of resorting to violence.

2. a racist term conveying contempt for blacks, especially black males; a euphemism for ni**er.

There is some dispute over whether it only describes persons who act impulsively or if it can be used to describe persons who act with premeditation. Also, it's not clear how drug dealers fit the description of 'thug' (as some folks suggest) when selling drugs isn't an act of violence.

Anyone else have a definition to offer? Or wants to comment on the premeditation vs. acting impulsively question?

I completely disagree with #2. While there is a racial imbalance to those that are thugs the term says nothing about race.

I would also not automatically describe a drug dealer as a thug--thug specifically refers to violent acts, not merely criminal acts. Now, in practice an inner city drug dealer is most likely a thug because the ones that aren't will be displaced by the ones that are.

Yes, your thuggish type of drug dealer does tend to drive out the more gentile drug dealers. This has long been a problem for suburban drug dealers who want to expand their operations into inner city areas.

 

[LordKiran]

I completely disagree with #2. While there is a racial imbalance to those that are thugs the term says nothing about race.

I would also not automatically describe a drug dealer as a thug--thug specifically refers to violent acts, not merely criminal acts. Now, in practice an inner city drug dealer is most likely a thug because the ones that aren't will be displaced by the ones that are.

Yes, your thuggish type of drug dealer does tend to drive out the more gentile drug dealers. This has long been a problem for suburban drug dealers who want to expand their operations into inner city areas.

In my experience, suburban dealers typically only go through people they know. They're a close knit sort and don't like to deal with people they either don't know, or won't have someone they do know present.

An urban street dealer though has to deal with random people on the street, making protection a necessity. You don't need some crazy junkie trying to rob you after all.