Current Events > With the new flaming rules in place..you can openly support Trump now

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mal_Fet posted...

Neither Vox bloggers, NPR shills, nor even essayists emoloyed by dictionary.com have the authority to decide what "thug" means.

Brown was a thug. Get over it.

So who does have the authority to define words, and why?
---

Congratulations on 200 posts of quality discussion, everyone
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Congratulations on 200 posts of quality discussion, everyone

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Congratulations on 200 posts of quality discussion, everyone

Honestly not surprised to see this hit 200 posts and Mal is in the middle of it trying to invent arguments again.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Neither Vox bloggers, NPR shills, nor even essayists emoloyed by dictionary.com have the authority to decide what "thug" means.

Brown was a thug. Get over it.

So who does have the authority to define words, and why?

General public usage indicates what words mean. A handful of racists do not have the power to make literally anything they want racist based on how they use them; that's the kind of logic that leads to people declaring that milk and the "ok" sign are now racist.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

mario2000 posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

No one cares what some bloggers definition is

mario2000 posted...

https://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/1/10889138/coded-language-thug-bossy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004736/

and since we're talking about dictionary definitions!

http://www.dictionary.com/e/thug/

Neither Vox bloggers, NPR shills, nor even essayists employed by dictionary.com have the authority to decide what "thug" means.

Brown was a thug. Get over it.

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

language evolves organically

meanings change

they are simply observing the change happening

deal with it
---

I didn't choose the thug life. The thug life chose me.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Neither Vox bloggers, NPR shills, nor even essayists emoloyed by dictionary.com have the authority to decide what "thug" means.

Brown was a thug. Get over it.

So who does have the authority to define words, and why?

General public usage indicates what words mean. A handful of racists do not have the power to make literally anything they want racist based on how they use them; that's the kind of logic that leads to people declaring that milk and the "ok" sign are now racist.

Your first sentence literally contradicts the rest of your post.
---

s0nicfan posted...

What a shock, Nad contributing nothing to an argument except inserting himself to make sweeping claims about a poster having a discussion with another poster.

I stand by my statement
---

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Neither Vox bloggers, NPR shills, nor even essayists emoloyed by dictionary.com have the authority to decide what "thug" means.

Brown was a thug. Get over it.

So who does have the authority to define words, and why?

General public usage indicates what words mean. A handful of racists do not have the power to make literally anything they want racist based on how they use them; that's the kind of logic that leads to people declaring that milk and the "ok" sign are now racist.

Uhh oh @The_Admiral.

This is the exact opposite of what you said.
---

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

language evolves organically

meanings change

they are simply observing the change happening

deal with it

The meaning of "thug" has not changed.

Deal with it.
---

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?

it is racist because people are using it in a racist way, therefore shifting the connotation
---

mario2000 posted...

language evolves organically

Doesn't sound "organic" when it's a bunch of liberal clickbait sites making up a definition to push an agenda.

You're completely wrong here, even by your own logic.
---

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?

it is racist because people are using it in a racist way, therefore shifting the connotation

But I'm not using thug in a racist way, therefore the word is not racist.
---

NadYobWoc posted...

s0nicfan posted...

What a shock, Nad contributing nothing to an argument except inserting himself to make sweeping claims about a poster having a discussion with another poster.

I stand by my statement

I'm sure you do. That doesn't change what you did, though. If you want to participate like a big boy feel free to take what I actually said argue it. Popping in to a discussion between 2 people to go "poster X is Y" is not only unproductive, but it's a shit thing to do.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?

it is racist because people are using it in a racist way, therefore shifting the connotation

But I'm not using thug in a racist way, therefore the word is not racist.

"[Black person] was a thug"

I didn't mean it in the racist way i swear guys
---

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?

it is racist because people are using it in a racist way, therefore shifting the connotation

There's no evidence that the vast majority of people using "thug" are using it as a substitution for a racist word, however. The shifting connotation is based entirely on the DESIRE for the word to be seen as racist, and not the reality of how (most) people are using it.
---

ZMythos posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?

it is racist because people are using it in a racist way, therefore shifting the connotation

But I'm not using thug in a racist way, therefore the word is not racist.

"[Black person] was a thug"

I didn't mean it in the racist way i swear guys

Correct, because him being black is irrelevant to my usage of the word.
---

The Admiral posted...

mario2000 posted...

language evolves organically

Doesn't sound "organic" when it's a bunch of liberal clickbait sites making up a definition to push an agenda.

You're completely wrong here, even by your own logic.

How is it that several different entities and organizations taking note of the words shifting connotation not an example of organic word usage?
---

Users in this topic:

"Did you hear about the thug who beat the shit out of a liquor store owner and then gunned down an innocent bystander on the street?"

Liberal: I need to know the race of the criminal before I can react to that statement.
---

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?

it is racist because people are using it in a racist way, therefore shifting the connotation

There's no evidence that the vast majority of people using "thug" are using it as a substitution for a racist word, however. The shifting connotation is based entirely on the DESIRE for the word to be seen as racist, and not the reality of how (most) people are using it.

>the "desire" for it to be seen as racist

That's not how language evolution works

at all

like jesus
---

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?

it is racist because people are using it in a racist way, therefore shifting the connotation

There's no evidence that the vast majority of people using "thug" are using it as a substitution for a racist word, however. The shifting connotation is based entirely on the DESIRE for the word to be seen as racist, and not the reality of how (most) people are using it.

It's also exclusive to the internet.

No one in real life is using thug as a thinly veiled Nword remark.

In fact, in my area at least, it carries little to no negative connotations at all.

Edit: I can't actually say no one. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the south/Bible Belt who do TBH.
---

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?

it is racist because people are using it in a racist way, therefore shifting the connotation

There's no evidence that the vast majority of people using "thug" are using it as a substitution for a racist word, however. The shifting connotation is based entirely on the DESIRE for the word to be seen as racist, and not the reality of how (most) people are using it.

>the "desire" for it to be seen as racist

That's not how language evolution works

at all

like jesus

Let's look at the sample statement mythos used:
"[Black person] was a thug"

There is nothing inherently racist about that statement. I'm sure it gets made all the time. If someone racist uses it, though, people start to question if it's a "substitute" word. Suddenly EVERY instance of that sentence is questionable, and if you believe that the world is filled with racists and you take an uncharitable interpretation of the sentence, suddenly it IS a racist substitution, based on a ton of data points that don't belong.
---

if someone is a criminal you can just call them a criminal you know

idk why you're so defensive over this one particular word

is your life going to be noticeably worse because you can't call people one word anymore
---

@ZMythos @mario2000

Neither of you have expressed why or how michael brown was not a thug
---

Ohh. It's one of those topics...
---

mario2000 posted...

if someone is a criminal you can just call them a criminal you know

idk why you're so defensive over this one particular word

is your life going to be noticeably worse because you can't call people one word anymore

And if they're a thug...call them a thug.

Idk why youre so defensiv over this one particular word.

Is your life going to be noticeably worse because you cant call people racist for using the word thug, when they use it to describe a thug?
---

KingCrabCake posted...

@ZMythos

You fail to grasp how thug is a racist term in this context and are instead teeing to argue something else i have not claimed.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

@ZMythos @mario2000

Neither of you have expressed why or how michael brown was not a thug

ok
---

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

no one has "authority" to decide what words mean

Therefore "thug" is racist because...? Do you see the problem with that argument?

it is racist because people are using it in a racist way, therefore shifting the connotation

There's no evidence that the vast majority of people using "thug" are using it as a substitution for a racist word, however. The shifting connotation is based entirely on the DESIRE for the word to be seen as racist, and not the reality of how (most) people are using it.

>the "desire" for it to be seen as racist

That's not how language evolution works

at all

like jesus

Let's look at the sample statement mythos used:
"[Black person] was a thug"

There is nothing inherently racist about that statement. I'm sure it gets made all the time. If someone racist uses it, though, people start to question if it's a "substitute" word. Suddenly EVERY instance of that sentence is questionable, and if you believe that the world is filled with racists and you take an uncharitable interpretation of the sentence, suddenly it IS a racist substitution, based on a ton of data points that don't belong.

Is this the part of the conversation where we pretend that euphemisms don't aren't a thing? Do parents and teachers just look the other way when kids start telling them to fudge off?
---

mario2000 posted...

if someone is a criminal you can just call them a criminal you know

idk why you're so defensive over this one particular word

is your life going to be noticeably worse because you can't call people one word anymore

Because I know how this game plays out. If "thug" is racist, people will just use another word like "punk". Then THAT word will be racist when applied to black people, because of this ever-evolving need to show how racist people are. Thug as a word has its own meaning separate from "criminal" and I don't see why people should intentionally use the wrong word to describe someone simply because someone else used the same word to imply racism.

Yes, it's only "one word", so then why is it such a big deal if people keep using it?
---

Anyway people who hate trump can still bash him and his policies as they see fit. Its completely fair for them to do so.

Attacking posters and everyone who voted for him is a big no-no and just plain silly.

Glad times have changed for the better.

#MGGA
---

I got modded for jokingly calling someone a jabroni, I think these new rules are ridiculous
---

ZMythos posted...

You fail to grasp how thug is a racist term in this context

The context is that he committed a violent robbery and assaulted a cop. I'm not seeing the racism there, maybe you can point it out specifically.
---

ZMythos posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

@ZMythos

You fail to grasp how thug is a racist term in this context and are instead teeing to argue something else i have not claimed.

So calling michael brown who by definition os a thug...a thug. Is racist? Lol

Do you agree yes or no that he is a thug?
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

So nobody else finds it funny that the very people who were so caustic against the (arguably ridiculous) safe space movement are celebrating their very own safe space here?

Outside of people trolling, most people on both sides have lamented the new restrictions. What conservatives are finding ironic is the fact that the side calling them trolls is the one most impacted by anti-trolling measures.
---

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

if someone is a criminal you can just call them a criminal you know

idk why you're so defensive over this one particular word

is your life going to be noticeably worse because you can't call people one word anymore

Because I know how this game plays out. If "thug" is racist, people will just use another word like "punk". Then THAT word will be racist when applied to black people, because of this ever-evolving need to show how racist people are. Thug as a word has its own meaning separate from "criminal" and I don't see why people should intentionally use the wrong word to describe someone simply because someone else used the same word to imply racism.

Yes, it's only "one word", so then why is it such a big deal if people keep using it?

The euphemism treadmill exists because increased usage of words in a derogatory manner causes them to take on a derogatory meaning, not because of some "need to show how racist people are" that you invented just now.
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

So nobody else finds it funny that the very people who were so caustic against the (arguably ridiculous) safe space movement are celebrating their very own safe space here?

I have done nothing but laugh since last night. Between that and free speech advocates who just support free speech "no matter how vile it is or against it you are" are also the ones celebrating.

Such a minor change anyways. Pretty lulzy IMO.
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

So nobody else finds it funny that the very people who were so caustic against the (arguably ridiculous) safe space movement are celebrating their very own safe space here?

How many times are you going to post this?

And also theres a difference between needing a safe space cause Trump won and wanting rules to be enforced when trolls call other uses idiots etc
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Congratulations on 200 posts of quality discussion, everyone

Hey, I tried discussing the ramifications of such a vague and broad TOS rule and was ignored. *shrug
---

Yes, it's racist.

Again, you are ignoring sociocultural context.
---

Holy fuck I made a post, went into a meeting at work, and now it's 240 posts. lol
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

So nobody else finds it funny that the very people who were so caustic against the (arguably ridiculous) safe space movement are celebrating their very own safe space here?

I find it funny that the running theme of this topic is making up alternative definitions for words.

Safe space doesn't mean "a place where you can avoid being insulted for no good reason." It's a place where you go because you're too delicate to even deal with differing opinions, which seems to be a big problem for the insults-first crowd.
---

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

if someone is a criminal you can just call them a criminal you know

idk why you're so defensive over this one particular word

is your life going to be noticeably worse because you can't call people one word anymore

Because I know how this game plays out. If "thug" is racist, people will just use another word like "punk". Then THAT word will be racist when applied to black people, because of this ever-evolving need to show how racist people are. Thug as a word has its own meaning separate from "criminal" and I don't see why people should intentionally use the wrong word to describe someone simply because someone else used the same word to imply racism.

Yes, it's only "one word", so then why is it such a big deal if people keep using it?

The euphemism treadmill exists because increased usage of words in a derogatory manner causes them to take on a derogatory meaning, not because of some "need to show how racist people are" that you invented just now.

And where does that treadmill end? All you're doing is systematically erasing words from the dictionary that are allowed in civil discourse. How about, instead of burning it all down, you continue to allow words to be used as they're defined and use CONTEXT to decide if the individual using them is doing so in a racist way?

EDIT: The problem is you can't eliminate racism by making it impossible to use certain words, so I don't see what's accomplished by what you're trying to do.
---

ZMythos posted...

Yes, it's racist.

Again, you are ignoring sociocultural context.

Lmfao ahaha

And you're ignoring a question and ignoring the actual definition of thug
---

The Admiral posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

So nobody else finds it funny that the very people who were so caustic against the (arguably ridiculous) safe space movement are celebrating their very own safe space here?

I find it funny that the running theme of this topic is making up alternative definitions for words.

Safe space doesn't mean "a place where you can avoid being insulted for no good reason." It's a place where you go because you're too delicate to even deal with differing opinions, which seems to be a big problem for the insults-first crowd.

You just can't seem to decide how words and phrases shifting in definitions work. Which is odd considering you're such an ardent defender of the term social marxism.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

So nobody else finds it funny that the very people who were so caustic against the (arguably ridiculous) safe space movement are celebrating their very own safe space here?

How many times are you going to post this?

And also theres a difference between needing a safe space cause Trump won and wanting rules to be enforced when trolls call other uses idiots etc

Not really when it's been argued to death here that "they're just words" and that the neo-Nazi throwing bananas at black people "was basically doing nothing wrong".

You might not have been here for those topics over the last year, but it is completely hypocritical for many users here to act like these changes are fair and in no way go against everything they advocated for in 2017.

Unless we're being disingenuous, of course.
---

s0nicfan posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

s0nicfan posted...

What a shock, Nad contributing nothing to an argument except inserting himself to make sweeping claims about a poster having a discussion with another poster.

I stand by my statement

I'm sure you do. That doesn't change what you did, though. If you want to participate like a big boy feel free to take what I actually said argue it. Popping in to a discussion between 2 people to go "poster X is Y" is not only unproductive, but it's a shit thing to do.

I didnt say poster x is y, I said poster x is known to y, which you are. Its like a public service announcment.
---