Defining the term 'Thug'.

[laughing dog]

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 an American protest, wearing a mask is definitely suspicious.

In these days of fear-driven stupidity and the ever-expanding surveillance state, I don't find it bothersome or suspicious at all.

 

[Mumbles]

In an American protest, wearing a mask is definitely suspicious.

In these days of fear-driven stupidity and the ever-expanding surveillance state, I don't find it bothersome or suspicious at all.

Yep. I know quite a few Ferguson protestors wore masks either to protect their identities (a wise move - it turns out authorities *were* monitoring and targeting some individuals), or to protect against the tear gas that police used *far* too liberally, often after blocking off all exits so the protestors could not escape.

 

[Malintent]

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

Yeah, to me it is "a person who uses presumed position of physical power or authority to commit arbitrary acts of violence in order to either create the sense of fear or domination"

Or maybe even more simply, "People who commit acts of violence because they either have the authority or physical power or anonymity to get away with it."

I think your first definition more closely matches what a "Terrorist" is. Take the "to create fear" away and it is "just" Thuggish.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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

Yeah, to me it is "a person who uses presumed position of physical power or authority to commit arbitrary acts of violence in order to either create the sense of fear or domination"

Or maybe even more simply, "People who commit acts of violence because they either have the authority or physical power or anonymity to get away with it."

That definition has certain notable exceptions.

For example:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, to me it is "a person who uses presumed position of physical power or authority to commit arbitrary acts of violence in order to either create the sense of fear or domination"

Or maybe even more simply, "People who commit acts of violence because they either have the authority or physical power or anonymity to get away with it."

I think your first definition more closely matches what a "Terrorist" is. Take the "to create fear" away and it is "just" Thuggish.

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.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think your first definition more closely matches what a "Terrorist" is. Take the "to create fear" away and it is "just" Thuggish.

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.

 

[Rayschism]

Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

 

[Mumbles]

Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

Antifa - works under the usual definition

Black Lives Matter - really doesn't even work under "thug = black", since they're a multi-racial group. Doesn't work under the normal definition, since they're nonviolent.

 

[Arctish]

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.

Which definition are you using?

Is George Zimmerman more of a thug, less of a thug, or as much of a thug as the guy who threw the woman into the pool?

Excuse me, but your use of the word, "you" is racist. "you" as in "you people"?? very racist. should be ashamed <rolleyes>

When I said "you" I meant *you*, not 'you'. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Rayschism]

Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

Antifa - works under the usual definition

Black Lives Matter - really doesn't even work under "thug = black", since they're a multi-racial group. Doesn't work under the normal definition, since they're nonviolent.

So a multi racial group can't be a group of thugs?

So much for conservatives being thugs then since that is a multi racial group.

 

[LordKiran]

Antifa - works under the usual definition

Black Lives Matter - really doesn't even work under "thug = black", since they're a multi-racial group. Doesn't work under the normal definition, since they're nonviolent.

So a multi racial group can't be a group of thugs?

So much for conservatives being thugs then since that is a multi racial group.

That is not what Mumbles said. Twisted words.

 

[laughing dog]

Antifa - works under the usual definition

Black Lives Matter - really doesn't even work under "thug = black", since they're a multi-racial group. Doesn't work under the normal definition, since they're nonviolent.

So a multi racial group can't be a group of thugs?

What Mumbles wrote was, in essence, if thug means black, then BLM cannot be thugs because some BLMers are not black. And, if thug means
"someone who uses violence to engage in criminal behavior or to intimidate people" then the BLM is still not a thug group because many BLmers are non-violent.

That does not mean that a group of people of many races (or one race) cannot be a group of thugs.

 

[Rayschism]

So a multi racial group can't be a group of thugs?

What Mumbles wrote was, in essence, if thug means black, then BLM cannot be thugs because some BLMers are not black. And, if thug means
"someone who uses violence to engage in criminal behavior or to intimidate people" then the BLM is still not a thug group because many BLmers are non-violent.

That does not mean that a group of people of many races (or one race) cannot be a group of thugs.

How is a large group of the shouting for the death of cops not 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.

 

[laughing dog]

What Mumbles wrote was, in essence, if thug means black, then BLM cannot be thugs because some BLMers are not black. And, if thug means
"someone who uses violence to engage in criminal behavior or to intimidate people" then the BLM is still not a thug group because many BLmers are non-violent.

That does not mean that a group of people of many races (or one race) cannot be a group of thugs.

How is a large group of the shouting for the death of cops not thugs?

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

.... and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

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

 

[Rayschism]

.... and disrupting Milo Yiannoplis doesn't strike me as rational and reasonable behavior.

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

Not if you believe in freedom of speech and choice.

if you don't like him, just don't go to his lectures.

 

[Rayschism]

How is a large group of the shouting for the death of cops not thugs?

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.

But being an asshole doesn't necessarily make you a thug, then again, it depends on what one means by 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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Criminal=/=Thug.

A thug is a physically violent criminal. This makes sense, given the etymology of the word.