Defining the term 'Thug'.

[Arctish]

Then show that it has been used that way on here.

As for showing some folks here use it as a euphemism for ni**er, be patient. We're just getting started but things are definitely trending in that direction.

Including the archived predecessor fora, there is over a decade of discussions. Surely you should be able to find some instances where a person was called a "thug" just because he was black, without being a thug under definition 1.

Be patient.

We still have to work out whether a one-off act of violence is enough to make a person a 'thug', or if a person has to demonstrate a pattern of violence before the term can be rightfully applied. Also, we need to consider whether violence done in self defense qualifies as a characteristic of thugs. Once that's done we can get down to specific cases and ask posters about why they used or didn't use the term in specific posts.

Do you have another definition of 'thug' you want us to include?

I think the Definition 1 is a good working definition.

Cool.

 

[Arctish]

Must a person have a history of violence in order to qualify as a thug, or is a single act of violence sufficient?

What if the act of violence was done in self defense, or occurred in a situation where a reasonable person might feel the need to defend themselves through violence? Would resorting to violence in such a situation mean he/she is a thug?

 

[DrZoidberg]

euphemism

eu·phe·mism

/ˈyo͞ofəˌmizəm/

noun: euphemism; plural noun: euphemisms

a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

So, 'thug' is a euphemism for ni**er? Is that why some posters don't use it to describe whites?

 

[Mumbles]

Calling it "a euphemism for 'nigger'." is actually going too easy on this use of the word (which is not at all restricted to this forum).

You have yet to show that this use has been used on this forum, or that it is at all widespread outside it.

I've already pointed out the famous examples of Trayvon Martin, Richard Sherman (who pointed this out himself when he was referred to as a "thug" for shouting after a football game - he noted that a hockey game that same week *began* with the players brawling, yet they were not referred to as "thugs"), and the rapper Common when he was invited to recite poetry at the White House. Other examples include, incredibly, 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

 

[Derec]

Be patient.
We still have to work out whether a one-off act of violence is enough to make a person a 'thug', or if a person has to demonstrate a pattern of violence before the term can be rightfully applied.

This is not about playing gotchas with a fine tuned definition of "thug". It's about a claim that "thug" is frequently used to refer to somebody just because they are black. So can you give me some examples of that?

 

[Derec]

I've already pointed out the famous examples of Trayvon Martin,

The talk about Trayvon was to offer some balance to the uncritical narrative offered by the family, and at least initially by the media. Complete with photos of him when he was about 13.
And it was based on what he said and did, from getting suspended for tagging school lockers or having unexplained jewlery and a burglary tool in his possession to his social media life.
Gun, drug texts feature in new Trayvon Martin shooting evidence

The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after "da police caught me outta skool."
"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," the person with whom he is texting says.
"Naw, I'm a gangsta," the text message read.
[..]"U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out)," one text message sent from Martin's phone reads.

So yes, characterization of Trayvon Martin was not based on him being black.

Richard Sherman (who pointed this out himself when he was referred to as a "thug" for shouting after a football game - he noted that a hockey game that same week *began* with the players brawling, yet they were not referred to as "thugs"),

Not really true.
The Most Violent Thugs in NHL History

and the rapper Common when he was invited to recite poetry at the White House.
Other examples include, incredibly, 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

So three possible cases in the last few years, none of them on this forum, is not really a dangerous trend.
Also that police chief said that Tamir acted like a thug, not that he was one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The white males that make the news often are for misdeeds other than thuggish behavior. For example, the sex offenses by various right-wing scumbags.

The violent criminals who make the news for thuggish behavior are the ones we're talking about, not the sex offenders or tax cheats. Some posters actively resist applying the term 'thug' to whites regardless of how well they fit definition #1. Those same posters apply the term to blacks who don't fit definition #1 at all. So what is the second definition in use here?

If it's not

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

then what is it?

I keep asking for examples and don't get any. All that's been cited is Y'all-Queda but I do not consider them thugs. There was basically zero violence involved in their actions, nor do they have a past history of violence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We still have to work out whether a one-off act of violence is enough to make a person a 'thug', or if a person has to demonstrate a pattern of violence before the term can be rightfully applied. Also, we need to consider whether violence done in self defense qualifies as a characteristic of thugs. Once that's done we can get down to specific cases and ask posters about why they used or didn't use the term in specific posts.

As I consider "thug" to be a character trait it requires a pattern. However, when we have one incident that appears to be thuggish and a lack of other data I'll use the term.

Self-defense is not unwarranted violence in the first place, I don't see that it's relevant.

 

[LordKiran]

Then show that it has been used that way on here.

Including the archived predecessor fora, there is over a decade of discussions. Surely you should be able to find some instances where a person was called a "thug" just because he was black, without being a thug under definition 1.

Be patient.

We still have to work out whether a one-off act of violence is enough to make a person a 'thug', or if a person has to demonstrate a pattern of violence before the term can be rightfully applied. Also, we need to consider whether violence done in self defense qualifies as a characteristic of thugs. Once that's done we can get down to specific cases and ask posters about why they used or didn't use the term in specific posts.

Do you have another definition of 'thug' you want us to include?

I think the Definition 1 is a good working definition.

Cool.

The reason you have yet to work that out is because you're deliberately overthinking it, as though calling someone a "Thug" were some sort of proverbial scarlet letter. Yesterday's thug is tomorrow's upstanding citizen and back again the next. You need to be more fluid with your thinking.

This of course ignores the fact that certain individuals are using this thread as an opportunity to smokescreen their bullshit but hey!

 

[ronburgundy]

We still have to work out whether a one-off act of violence is enough to make a person a 'thug', or if a person has to demonstrate a pattern of violence before the term can be rightfully applied.

Wouldn't it make sense for the specific nature of the violent act to matter? That includes not just the severity of the violence and motives, but whether it is the type of act that is typically engaged in repeatedly by those who engaged in it at all (e.g., shooting a person during a drug deal). In such cases, a single known incident rationally implies a pattern of behavior in contrast to reactionary violence to a specific situation (shooting your wife's lover). Not to mention, an act of violence committed by a gun that the person happened to have on them because they regularly carry or possess a gun illegally is an indicator that the person is chronically violent.

On a related note, non-violent criminal acts matter too. Not victimless crimes less personal drug use which shouldn't be criminal in the first place, but acts that harm others and show a basic lack of regard for others, like property theft and destruction. Such acts, while not sufficient for being a thug, objectively increase the probability that a single known act of violence is part of a general criminal disposition rather than a one-time reaction to a specific situation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We still have to work out whether a one-off act of violence is enough to make a person a 'thug', or if a person has to demonstrate a pattern of violence before the term can be rightfully applied. Also, we need to consider whether violence done in self defense qualifies as a characteristic of thugs. Once that's done we can get down to specific cases and ask posters about why they used or didn't use the term in specific posts.

As I consider "thug" to be a character trait it requires a pattern.

So you said back in the old protest thread when you tried to apply that label to EVERY PROTESTOR IN THE AREA, whether they had participated in the fight or not, after three white supremacists opened fire on them. You tried to say that posting the videos on youtube was evidence of a "thug mindset" or some other nonsense and therefore posting the video established the pattern.

Interestingly, you did not refer to the SHOOTERS as thugs, and refused to do so, despite the fact that they ALSO posted videos of their antics on youtube and glibly described their presence at that rally as "tactical recon."

Self-defense is not unwarranted violence in the first place, I don't see that it's relevant.

Don't thugs sometimes engage in self defense?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I consider "thug" to be a character trait it requires a pattern.

So you said back in the old protest thread when you tried to apply that label to EVERY PROTESTOR IN THE AREA, whether they had participated in the fight or not, after three white supremacists opened fire on them. You tried to say that posting the videos on youtube was evidence of a "thug mindset" or some other nonsense and therefore posting the video established the pattern.

Interestingly, you did not refer to the SHOOTERS as thugs, and refused to do so, despite the fact that they ALSO posted videos of their antics on youtube and glibly described their presence at that rally as "tactical recon."

Self-defense is not unwarranted violence in the first place, I don't see that it's relevant.

Don't thugs sometimes engage in self defense?

1) I didn't apply it to every protester in the area. I applied it to the group in question.

2) I based that on their violent reaction to an intruder--something that was completely unwarranted. We don't have a past history to evaluate so I am looking at what caused them to engage in criminal violence--and it was something very minor. That looks thuggish to me.

 

[laughing dog]

So you said back in the old protest thread when you tried to apply that label to EVERY PROTESTOR IN THE AREA, whether they had participated in the fight or not, after three white supremacists opened fire on them. You tried to say that posting the videos on youtube was evidence of a "thug mindset" or some other nonsense and therefore posting the video established the pattern.

Interestingly, you did not refer to the SHOOTERS as thugs, and refused to do so, despite the fact that they ALSO posted videos of their antics on youtube and glibly described their presence at that rally as "tactical recon."

Self-defense is not unwarranted violence in the first place, I don't see that it's relevant.

Don't thugs sometimes engage in self defense?

1) I didn't apply it to every protester in the area. I applied it to the group in question.

2) I based that on their violent reaction to an intruder--something that was completely unwarranted. We don't have a past history to evaluate so I am looking at what caused them to engage in criminal violence--and it was something very minor.

Even though you knew nothing of their personal histories.

That looks thuggish to me.

And those armed bigots looking for a fight and antagonizing the crowd did not look "thuggish". Gee, I wonder what was the distinguishing characteristic of the people in the crowd that made them "thuggish" but not those armed, looking for a fight, men .

Then, of course, we have you saying Tamir Rice learned the thuggish lifestyle from his mother (an alleged drug dealer), even though you had no idea whether she was a violent or non-violent dealer.

 

[Arctish]

Be patient.
We still have to work out whether a one-off act of violence is enough to make a person a 'thug', or if a person has to demonstrate a pattern of violence before the term can be rightfully applied.

This is not about playing gotchas with a fine tuned definition of "thug". It's about a claim that "thug" is frequently used to refer to somebody just because they are black. So can you give me some examples of that?

You're right. This thread is not about playing gotchas. I started this thread for the same reason I started the Define SJW please thread. There is a term being used in two distinctly different ways on this board. I want to know why that is.

As for providing examples, I was going to wait until we all agreed whether being a thug is a mindset that manifests as a pattern of behavior, or if it's a singular event that might or might not be repeated throughout a person's life. IMO it's a mindset. But I suppose we can get to examples now. Just don't be surprised if someone tries to use that bit of ambiguity as an 'out' if one of their sacred cows is about to get gored.

So, our first example is how the term 'thug' is applied to Trayvon Martin but not to George Zimmerman.

The talk about Trayvon was to offer some balance to the uncritical narrative offered by the family, and at least initially by the media. Complete with photos of him when he was about 13.
And it was based on what he said and did, from getting suspended for tagging school lockers or having unexplained jewlery and a burglary tool in his possession to his social media life.
Gun, drug texts feature in new Trayvon Martin shooting evidence

The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after "da police caught me outta skool."
"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," the person with whom he is texting says.
"Naw, I'm a gangsta," the text message read.
[..]"U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out)," one text message sent from Martin's phone reads.

So yes, characterization of Trayvon Martin was not based on him being black.

We have a working definition of thug. It is:

thug
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.

Trayvon Martin does not fit definition #1. Even if we take everything you posted at face value, all we see is a kid who skipped school, denied being a hoodlum, and called himself 'gangsta'. The allegation he had burglary tools and jewelry was never substantiated and the newspaper that carried it pulled the story. But let's act like it was a substantiated claim and that Trayvon had a screwdriver and jewelry of unknown provenance in his backpack.

So, no evidence of violence other than him calling himself 'gangsta'. No evidence of criminal activity other than the bag of jewelry, which could be stolen goods but does not indicate he committed a violent crime. Martin doesn't fit the description of a thug in definition#1.

Now let's take a look at the elephant in the room, Mr. George Zimmerman.

He has a juvvie record for his involvement in a violent crime. He has an adult criminal record for a violent crime. His fiancé got a restraining order against him for alleged domestic violence. His former co-worker said he witnessed Zimmerman committing an act of violence. His cousin alleged he committed assault and battery against her for years. He smashed his wife's iPad and struck his father-in-law in the face during a domestic dispute. He allegedly threatened his girlfriend and is known to have damaged her property and locked her out of her own home. He assaulted another girlfriend. He got into a couple of bar fights. And that's not even considering his actions the night he saw Trayvon Martin walking home.

George Zimmerman fits definition#1 in every way. He also fits the addition to the definition I wanted to include, a person who displays a pattern of aggressive, violent, and/or intimidating behavior, but we don't need to agree his actions are part of a pattern to conclude Zimmerman is a thug.


Say it with me, Derec: George Zimmerman fits our working definition of a thug.

And yet, it's Martin who is called a thug by you and Loren.

If the subject's race isn't the reason for the blatant misapplication of the term 'thug' in the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, then what is it? What factor is in play here that affects the outcome to this degree?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So you said back in the old protest thread when you tried to apply that label to EVERY PROTESTOR IN THE AREA, whether they had participated in the fight or not, after three white supremacists opened fire on them. You tried to say that posting the videos on youtube was evidence of a "thug mindset" or some other nonsense and therefore posting the video established the pattern.

Interestingly, you did not refer to the SHOOTERS as thugs, and refused to do so, despite the fact that they ALSO posted videos of their antics on youtube and glibly described their presence at that rally as "tactical recon."

Self-defense is not unwarranted violence in the first place, I don't see that it's relevant.

Don't thugs sometimes engage in self defense?

1) I didn't apply it to every protester in the area. I applied it to the group in question.

2) I based that on their violent reaction to an intruder--something that was completely unwarranted. We don't have a past history to evaluate so I am looking at what caused them to engage in criminal violence--and it was something very minor. That looks thuggish to me.

Exactly my point:

Punching a white supremacist agitator and chasing him away from a BLM protest is "thuggish" behavior in lack of any other evidence, even lacking a pattern of violence. This falls under Arctish's definition #2.

OTOH, attending a BLM protest with loaded weapons, masks, and an avowedly confrontational demeanor is "self defense" when the perpetrators are white. So that, too, falls under definition #2 in that case: "thuggish behavior" requires evidence of a pattern of that behavior if the perpetrators are white. It requires no such pattern when the perpetrators are black, as in the case of Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence

Among undergraduate students, 23.1% of females and 5.4% of males experience rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence, or incapacitation.<sup>2
.....

Are our colleges fillled with rapist thugs?</sup>

 

[Mumbles]

So you said back in the old protest thread when you tried to apply that label to EVERY PROTESTOR IN THE AREA, whether they had participated in the fight or not, after three white supremacists opened fire on them. You tried to say that posting the videos on youtube was evidence of a "thug mindset" or some other nonsense and therefore posting the video established the pattern.

Interestingly, you did not refer to the SHOOTERS as thugs, and refused to do so, despite the fact that they ALSO posted videos of their antics on youtube and glibly described their presence at that rally as "tactical recon."

Self-defense is not unwarranted violence in the first place, I don't see that it's relevant.

Don't thugs sometimes engage in self defense?

1) I didn't apply it to every protester in the area. I applied it to the group in question.

2) I based that on their violent reaction to an intruder--something that was completely unwarranted. We don't have a past history to evaluate so I am looking at what caused them to engage in criminal violence--and it was something very minor. That looks thuggish to me.

Exactly my point:

Punching a white supremacist agitator and chasing him away from a BLM protest is "thuggish" behavior in lack of any other evidence, even lacking a pattern of violence. This falls under Arctish's definition #2.

OTOH, attending a BLM protest with loaded weapons, masks, and an avowedly confrontational demeanor is "self defense" when the perpetrators are white. So that, too, falls under definition #2 in that case: "thuggish behavior" requires evidence of a pattern of that behavior if the perpetrators are white. It requires no such pattern when the perpetrators are black, as in the case of Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice.

It's worth noting that the shooter at the BLM rally was recently sentenced to 15 years of jail time for his actions. Turns out that, unlike in Florida, "I had to defend myself after I set out to start a fight." doesn't fly in Minnesota.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So you said back in the old protest thread when you tried to apply that label to EVERY PROTESTOR IN THE AREA, whether they had participated in the fight or not, after three white supremacists opened fire on them. You tried to say that posting the videos on youtube was evidence of a "thug mindset" or some other nonsense and therefore posting the video established the pattern.

Interestingly, you did not refer to the SHOOTERS as thugs, and refused to do so, despite the fact that they ALSO posted videos of their antics on youtube and glibly described their presence at that rally as "tactical recon."

Self-defense is not unwarranted violence in the first place, I don't see that it's relevant.

Don't thugs sometimes engage in self defense?

1) I didn't apply it to every protester in the area. I applied it to the group in question.

2) I based that on their violent reaction to an intruder--something that was completely unwarranted. We don't have a past history to evaluate so I am looking at what caused them to engage in criminal violence--and it was something very minor. That looks thuggish to me.

Exactly my point:

Punching a white supremacist agitator and chasing him away from a BLM protest is "thuggish" behavior in lack of any other evidence, even lacking a pattern of violence. This falls under Arctish's definition #2.

OTOH, attending a BLM protest with loaded weapons, masks, and an avowedly confrontational demeanor is "self defense" when the perpetrators are white. So that, too, falls under definition #2 in that case: "thuggish behavior" requires evidence of a pattern of that behavior if the perpetrators are white. It requires no such pattern when the perpetrators are black, as in the case of Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice.

It's worth noting that the shooter at the BLM rally was recently sentenced to 15 years of jail time for his actions. Turns out that, unlike in Florida, "I had to defend myself after I set out to start a fight." doesn't fly in Minnesota.

I'm aware of this too. I continue to be tickled by the irony that even the JURY thought those guys fit definition #1 despite the waffling of posters here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, let's not forget. President Obama used the term "thug" to refer to the Baltimore rioters. Does he think "thug" is synonomous with "nigger"? You tell me.

I like the Doctor of Common Sense's take on the use of the word "thug":

Obama was actually talking about people causing violence for violence sake. He wasn't complaining about people protesting peacefully, like Derec has.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And those armed bigots looking for a fight and antagonizing the crowd did not look "thuggish". Gee, I wonder what was the distinguishing characteristic of the people in the crowd that made them "thuggish" but not those armed, looking for a fight, men .

Then, of course, we have you saying Tamir Rice learned the thuggish lifestyle from his mother (an alleged drug dealer), even though you had no idea whether she was a violent or non-violent dealer.

You react to words with mob violence, you look like a thug.