Defining the term 'Thug'.

[Rayschism]

Nice sarcasm.

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

Milo is not an SJW troll. He is a conservative troll.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Milo is not an SJW troll. He is a conservative troll.

He has somehow made a career, up to a short while ago about yakking and whining about social issues he gives two fucks about. By definition, he is a SJW Troll.

 

[Frikki]

A thug can also be independent, but the defining quality is street level, usually violent crime. Your muggers, your robbers, your drug dealers, your drive-by shooters.
And yes, usually not too bright.
Like this guy:

Note: Derec posts a video of a black man he considers a "thug".

Despite multiple threads discussing Derec's long history of equating "thug" with "black man", he couldn't even take a few extra seconds to find a video of a white guy he considers a "thug" if only in an attempt to disprove our opinions of his intent.

Nope. He was true to form yet again. When Derec uses the word "thug", he means "black man". What anyone else defines the word as really doesn't matter because that was never the point of the other discussion.

Well Derec has insider info in the criminal world so if he as a admitted criminal says that only black guys are thugs then who are we to argue?

But seriously thug is a word that racist pussies use because they are afraid to say nigger.

 

[Rayschism]

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

Milo is not an SJW troll. He is a conservative troll.

I think I will disagree with. SJWs want a communist utopia. Milo just wants to make money.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Milo is not an SJW troll. He is a conservative troll.

I think I will disagree with.

Of course. This would require you to accept a generally accepted definition for once.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Inciting a riot does not make you a "thug."

"Agitator," maybe.

Or "terrorist"

Or "Rebel" or "insurgent" or "subversive."

We're trying to discuss the MEANINGS of words, though, not which people we want to throw them at as pejoratives.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is. And these thing would make one a thug, would they not?

No.

What makes shouting a crime is the context and content and intent of the shouting.

Being a criminal and being a thug are two different things. To begin with, violent/thuggish behavior is not always illegal, and criminal behavior is not always violent.

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.

The KKK shot and lynched thousands of black people. Those they didn't kill, they threatened to kill with guns, bombs, knives, clubs or their bare hands. Those they didn't threaten, they savagely beat them, or directly threatened to beat kill them and their families if they did not show due deference to the White Race.

So the term "thug" accurately applies to the KKK.

 

[J842P]

Milo is not an SJW troll. He is a conservative troll.

He has somehow made a career, up to a short while ago about yakking and whining about social issues he gives two fucks about. By definition, he is a SJW Troll.

He made a career through exploiting the sad state of liberals today. Essentially, he discovered that you can troll them into losing their shit, making him seem like the reasonable one. And, it seems, every time he goes to another University he succeeds in making his detractors look like morons.

 

[J842P]

I think I will disagree with.

Of course. This would require you to accept a generally accepted definition for once.

Eh, turning the whole "social justice warrior" around on conservatives really comes off as weak. It certainly isn't clever. Sort of the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" Something like "Right-wing Freedom Fighter" would be more clever in the sense that it has the same sort of sardonic feel to it without making you look like a 3rd grader.

 

[Mumbles]

Of course. This would require you to accept a generally accepted definition for once.

Eh, turning the whole "social justice warrior" around on conservatives really comes off as weak. It certainly isn't clever. Sort of the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" Something like "Right-wing Freedom Fighter" would be more clever in the sense that it has the same sort of sardonic feel to it without making you look like a 3rd grader.

Considering that "SJW", much like "regressive leftist", "snowflake", or "cuck" is nothing more than a way to insult someone you disagree with in an attempt to shut down discussion, it applies as well to Milo Yablahblah as it does to anyone else - especially since he threw a fit over someone calling him a white supremacist.

ETA: folks could stand to learn what "triggers" actually are, as well.

 

[Arctish]

Milo is not an SJW troll. He is a conservative troll.

I think I will disagree with. SJWs want a communist utopia. Milo just wants to make money.

You think you will disagree with.... yourself?

 

[Arctish]

Of course. This would require you to accept a generally accepted definition for once.

Eh, turning the whole "social justice warrior" around on conservatives really comes off as weak. It certainly isn't clever. Sort of the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" Something like "Right-wing Freedom Fighter" would be more clever in the sense that it has the same sort of sardonic feel to it without making you look like a 3rd grader.

A while ago I started a thread to define what the term SJW means. It quickly became apparent that some people use the term to recognize an individual's efforts to promote social justice, while others use the term to express mockery and scorn for people who care about such things. The end result is people using a term with a positive connotation to describe a poster promoting a social justice cause who then gets all huffy and offended. It's kinda funny to watch, which is why people do it. Nevertheless, calling a conservative a SJW isn't just a silly retort. If they have a history of caring about social justice issues like due process and eliminating sexism then it's an accurate description.

Milo probably did more to promote the sarcastic, scornful meaning of SJW than anyone else, which makes it extra funny to see him try to dodge the label every time he claims his trolling serves a higher purpose.

Anyway, all this ^ is a bit off topic. No one has yet responded to this post:

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?

Does anyone want to do the comparison between Zimmerman and the teenager in the video?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course. This would require you to accept a generally accepted definition for once.

Eh, turning the whole "social justice warrior" around on conservatives really comes off as weak. It certainly isn't clever. Sort of the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" Something like "Right-wing Freedom Fighter" would be more clever in the sense that it has the same sort of sardonic feel to it without making you look like a 3rd grader.

I was being absolutely serious. The term SJW refers to people that use social issues to propel their name exposure. They don't give a fuck about the actual issue. Hence the 'justice warrior' part is sarcastically used.

The right-wing perverted it, as they do many things.

 

[Rayschism]

Eh, turning the whole "social justice warrior" around on conservatives really comes off as weak. It certainly isn't clever. Sort of the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" Something like "Right-wing Freedom Fighter" would be more clever in the sense that it has the same sort of sardonic feel to it without making you look like a 3rd grader.

A while ago I started a thread to define what the term SJW means. It quickly became apparent that some people use the term to recognize an individual's efforts to promote social justice, while others use the term to express mockery and scorn for people who care about such things. The end result is people using a term with a positive connotation to describe a poster promoting a social justice cause who then gets all huffy and offended. It's kinda funny to watch, which is why people do it. Nevertheless, calling a conservative a SJW isn't just a silly retort. If they have a history of caring about social justice issues like due process and eliminating sexism then it's an accurate description.

Milo probably did more to promote the sarcastic, scornful meaning of SJW than anyone else, which makes it extra funny to see him try to dodge the label every time he claims his trolling serves a higher purpose.

Anyway, all this ^ is a bit off topic. No one has yet responded to this post:

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?

Does anyone want to do the comparison between Zimmerman and the teenager in the video?

Because those people who claim to care about social justice don't really care about social justice. They are bullies and liars and often ignorant of the causes and things they speak of. Not to mention they do not care about things like facts and evidence, benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty.

Now, to be fair, there are real infringements upon things like constitutional rights and liberties. For example, according to the DOJ report on Ferguson, in short the town's police and government were unfairly misusing the law against African Americans of that town to raise revenue.

 

[Arctish]

Do you want to talk about the topic of this thread, defining the term 'thug', or offer an opinion on whether George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin fits our working definition?

 

[Rayschism]

Do you want to talk about the topic of this thread, defining the term 'thug', or offer an opinion on whether George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin fits our working definition?

I'd prefer to remain with the topic of the thread.

Also keep in mind, the word thug itself comes from the Thuggee, a group that worshiped Kali and killed people on the road for fun and profit, in India.

 

[Arctish]

Do you want to talk about the topic of this thread, defining the term 'thug', or offer an opinion on whether George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin fits our working definition?

I'd prefer to remain with the topic of the thread.

Also keep in mind, the word thug itself comes from the Thuggee, a group that worshiped Kali and killed people on the road for fun and profit, in India.

I've already addressed this.

The only times I've heard people use the term 'thug' to refer to thugees is when they're talking about the origin of the word and how it was incorporated into the English language. That definition, while etymologically correct, is irrelevant. It's not the one being used when posters call someone a thug.

This thread is about how the term is being used on this board, and I'm glad to hear you prefer to remain with the thread topic. So, is there anything you wanted to add to our working definition? Would you care to comment on the Zimmerman/ Martin question?