Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thug *is* sometimes a word used with a racial connotation. It is really stupid to deny that fact. A word can be a totally neutral word and acquire a racial connotation. Doesn't mean that anybody who uses it is a racist because some people just never got the memo or are too stubborn to give up a word they like just because it was co-opted. "Gay" was a euphemism for homosexual for decades before the dictionaries recognized that. Dictionaries are not the arbiter of what is a word; They are a record of the most common and time-tested usages ONLY. They are like the part of the iceberg you see.

Oh, and when you mean miserly, it is unwise to use "niggardly". No matter what the dictionary says.
 
BenBurch said:
Thug *is* sometimes a word used with a racial connotation. It is really stupid to deny that fact. A word can be a totally neutral word and acquire a racial connotation. Doesn't mean that anybody who uses it is a racist because some people just never got the memo or are too stubborn to give up a word they like just because it was co-opted. "Gay" was a euphemism for homosexual for decades before the dictionaries recognized that. Dictionaries are not the arbiter of what is a word; They are a record of the most common and time-tested usages ONLY. They are like the part of the iceberg you see.

Oh, and when you mean miserly, it is unwise to use "niggardly". No matter what the dictionary says.
Click to expand...

Why would it be unwise?
 
BenBurch said:
Because we have seen more than one instance where the word was misinterpreted and assumed to have a connection with the N-word. And it is a reasonable expectation that any use of the word would be so-interpreted by some no matter your intention, and no matter how the dictionary defines it.
Click to expand...

So because some people are idiots, I should tailor my speech? I think not.

What's next, replace the Spanish negro with another word so other idiots won't be offended?
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Oh, you mean: "The only way "Spook" as a descriptor is racist is by a racist definition of the word by a racist." Yep, that is sound logic!!
Click to expand...
A spook is a ghost. That's why Secret Agents were know as "Spooks"--they weren't supposed to be seen.
You can change the definitions all you want. We are saying the definition is variable-The "It's Racist" folks are the ones insisting on a single, immutable definition--Theirs!
 
Mumbles said:
....
I'll only note that everyone objecting to the note that "thug" has become a racial slur, *still* have given no explanation for why it was used for Richard Sherman, Trayvon Martin, or Jordan Davis.
Click to expand...

It couldn't have possibly been because they were perceived as thugs.. Because everyone knows the definition of thug is dark skinned....


Skeptic Ginger said:
So all the Clive Bundy crowd were thugs by that definition. Wonder why they weren't called thugs?
Click to expand...

I have no idea.. I didn't observe their behavior.

If I had, and considered their behavior thuggish, I would have no problem declaring them thugs, by my definition..
I don't make sweeping statements without evidence I find compelling.. That's what racists and bigots do ...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You're saying it didn't happen by making the unfounded assumption the witness must be lying.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times people are corrected on this they keep misrepresentin': I'm not contending the alleged witnesses lied. I'm saying that might be mistaken.

So he only lets off a volley of two, at first. Was his trigger finger getting warmed up?
Click to expand...

Again, one or two, not necessarily two. I'm more inclined it was to signal Brown to stop rather than to warm up for one-man execution squad.

But but Skeptic Tank says no one is arguing the bull-rushing theory because it's so far fetched.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Take it up with him.

So it's the magic bullet theory for you then, magically ignore the autopsy and stick with your preferred version of events. I see.
Click to expand...

This must be bitterly ironic for you, since magic bullet theory more clearly describes your version of events since the majority of hits came from the front. As I've pointed out, in the scenario forwarded by Unaboogie, which is possible, the bullets must each place in a highly particular way. One at the car, one on the run, and four (out of four) when Brown turns around. The alternative version laid out here allows for more leeway, while also making more sense of the pattern.
 
Last edited:
Some months ago a corrupt New York politician (a white, Republican Marine) threatened to throw a reporter off the second story of the state legislature. A black colleague asked if I'd heard about the incident and I matter-of-factly remarked, "the guy's a thug." After a marveled pause, he said, "That's exactly what he is!"

I don't think "thug" is racist, but it is insensitive. It wouldn't make sense for me to call the NY politician a "coon" or a "******," but thug works. People should refrain from saying it about it in this case, and critics should refrain from throwing around accusations of racism. I think we can all agree that Brown was no angel.
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
It couldn't have possibly been because they were perceived as thugs.. Because everyone knows the definition of thug is dark skinned....
Click to expand...

I have the distinct feeling you have no idea who at least two of the people mentioned are.
 
SkepticTank spilled the sugar when he said it was about "ghetto attitude". Since Cliven Bundy could never affect "ghetto attitude" no matter HOW MUCH he knows about the NEGRO, it's safe to say that for SkepticTank, Bundy would never be a thug, because "thug"="ghetto"="black". And by the way, when Cain is the voice of reason about insensitivity, people should listen!

:-)
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
No matter how many times people are corrected on this they keep misrepresentin': I'm not contending the alleged witnesses lied. I'm saying that might be mistaken.
Click to expand...
No, you said there was no evidence Wilson was a jerk. You didn't say there was evidence which might be a mistaken observation.

Cain said:
Again, one or two, not necessarily two. I'm more inclined it was to signal Brown to stop rather than to warm up for one-man execution squad.
Click to expand...
I think if that was the case then the police chief giving the first news conference would have said, "fired a single warning shot".

And I'm pretty sure most cops say it's against policy to fire warning shots, if you shoot the gun you shoot at the center mass, (aka to kill the suspect).

Cain said:
This must be bitterly ironic for you, since magic bullet theory more clearly describes your version of events since the majority of hits came from the front. As I've pointed out, in the scenario forwarded by Unaboogie, which is possible, the bullets must each place in a highly particular way. One at the car, one on the run, and four (out of four) when Brown turns around. The alternative version laid out here allows for more leeway, while also making more sense of the pattern.
Click to expand...
I don't need any magic bullets for my version. I don't even need the one shot hit from behind in my version of the most likely events.

I can explain how Brown was shot in the apex of his head with the trajectory toward the face very easily. The three witnesses that saw Brown try to give up and the one that saw Brown doubled over are telling the truth. Wilson fired at a man that was not a threat.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I cited the evidence. You can call that no evidence but it doesn't make it so.

The police in the area have a history of racism and corruption. That is the default position. One needs to show Wilson was somehow exempt from the usual behavior of his peers, especially in case of the Jennings department scandal where Wilson learned how to be a cop.
Click to expand...

Let's try replacing wilson and brown and see how that argument works ...

The policecitizens in the area have a history of racism and corruptionviolence . That is the default position. One needs to show Wilson Brown was somehow exempt from the usual behavior of his peers, especially in case of the Jennings department scandalFerguson where Wilson learned how to be a cop Brown grew up.[/QUOTE]

Nothing like a few sweeping generalizations, eh ?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The highlighted part is false.

TheL8Elvis said:
The state autopsy results we have claim brown was hit 6 times from the front. Not hit from behind.
Baden says one shot may have hit brown from behind.

I say I don't believe brown was hit from behind. He was shot at from behind, but probably not hit.

This is inconsistent how ?
<SNIP>
Click to expand...

How can something say a person was hit from the front if it's not certain? :boggled:
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...016ef8-26f4-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

The autopsy by St. Louis County chief medical examiner Mary Case, released to state prosecutors late Friday, found that Brown, 18, had six gunshot wounds to the head and chest and was shot from the front, the people said.

Apparently it was certain to St. Louis County chief medical examiner Mary Case.

ETA: unless "shot from the front" also means "hit from behind" ?
 
Last edited:
OnlyTellsTruths and others want to put "thug" on equal footing with terms like "spook" and "coon" and get us to stop using it in reference to black thugs, because it is supposedly in the process of transforming into a racial epithet for black people in general.

They assure us that language can change over time, which is of course true... but who changes language? Humans do. This is not some inevitable process. A word can change back to an earlier meaning, or a new supposed meaning can fail to get off the ground. Those of us who are standing firm and saying "no, thug is NOT a racial term" are exerting our right to influence where the language goes, or does not go. It's every bit as legitimate for people to resist the changing of a word as to embrace it.

It's quite simple to realize the term is not in the same category as "spook" or "coon" because unlike those terms, "thug" is a term used to describe people of any race under the right conditions. And even more importantly, the right conditions must be present for a black person to be called a thug. As I pointed out earlier, nobody called Jahvaris Fulton (Trayvon Martin's college attending, polite, well-spoken brother) a "thug."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom