Recently, the use of the word “thug” has been gaining both popularity and criticism when used to refer to the recent events in Baltimore; specifically, it has become the default label to identify those who rioted and participated in the looting and destruction of public and private property. By its definition, people are using the word appropriately and justifying their use of it based on that definition.
thug: noun; a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal; informal tough, bruiser, hardman, goon, heavy, enforcer, hired gun, hood. Ex. “one of Capone’s thugs”
Looking at the definition, it would seem to be an appropriate use of the word, given the context of its use, but allow me to give you the reasons why I refuse to use the word myself. First, it’s a broad label used to identify a diverse group of people for one instance. “They burned a building to the ground, so they must all be thugs.” Yes, destruction of someone else’s property is a crime, but you are making quite a leap to assume that all of those who participated are habitual violent criminals. Some of those who participated in the looting may in fact be thugs—people who consistently break the law with little regard for the safety and wellbeing of others—but surely not everyone who rushed into the chaos and made away with some toilet paper and deodorant should be considered a repeat offender of breaking the law in a violent manner.
What about those who participated in the riots? Are they thugs? One would have good reason to believe so, but isn’t it also possible that a Molotov cocktail found its way into the hands of a young boy or girl who lost a friend or a sibling at the hands of police officers because of an excessive use of force? When you are in distress, or in a time that you have lost your temper, have you ever lashed out and done something that you later regretted? I know that I have. Surely you would not label that young man or woman a thug just because of one poor decision made in a moment of chaos, confusion, frustration, or hopelessness… would you?
When you use a word like thug to refer to those who you see rioting on the news, you are labeling a person or a group of people who you most likely know very little about aside from a single instance that fits the proper use of the word. You should know though that labeling groups of people like that is not only lazy, it is also dismissive, and ultimately may be considered as classist or even racist. It is lazy because it exempts you from doing any more work to identify the people you are talking about, and it is dismissive because once you have categorized that person or group of people under that label, you cast them aside as unworthy of any further effort on your part to understand or even perhaps sympathize with.
If you justify yourself by saying that your use of the word is appropriate because the actions and behaviors that you observed reflect what “thug” actually means, then you should know that not only are words used based on their definition, but words actually gain meaning from their use. Here are some examples:
Gay. Today the word is most often used to refer to someone who is a homosexual, but the word originally meant a person who is light-hearted and carefree. It’s no surprise to me then that the word became a synonym for anyone who is homosexual because, let’s face it, gays are some of the happiest people that I know.
Fag. This word is not easy on the eyes or the ears and for good reason. This word was originally used to refer to a bundle of sticks and gained meaning to also refer to homosexuals because of the fact that people used to burn them at the stake. The phrase “throw another fag on the fire” originally meant to add more wood but later gained the meaning to also refer to burning a homosexual alive.
Retarded. The definition of the word is more or less the same as it always has been but it has become offensive because of the fact that it is dismissive and often used out of context as an insult. You would be correct if you referred to someone with a learning disability or mental impairment as retarded, but the word has become stigmatized because of how often it has been used as a synonym for something that is stupid or that is generally disliked.
Insane. Another word that has more or less retained its meaning over the years, it is now no longer a medical diagnosis but strictly a legal term to refer to someone who is “not of sound mind.” The reason I include this word here in this list is because historically it was used to refer to people with organic brain syndromes, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. but has gained the meaning for most people to refer to someone who you simply disagree with. I believe that I am right and because this person disagrees with me and I know that I am of sound mind, they must be insane. You immediately dismiss that person’s opinion and attribute it to the fact that they must have something wrong with them that prevents them from understanding how obviously correct you are.
Nigger. Derived from the word “negro” which simply means “black,” it has become one of the most offensive words in the English language for obvious reasons that I don’t feel I need to go into any more detail about.
Thug. The word historically comes from India and is the Hindi word for “thief;” it was most often used to refer to individuals from a group of robbers and assassins who would strangle their victims. Currently, it is gaining popularity as the word of choice for those who wish to write off what has happened in Baltimore and chalk it up to a simple explanation. They refuse to devote their energy to understanding what led up to recent events; instead of viewing it as the straw that broke the camel’s back, they choose to see the riots as single, isolated, unprovoked incidents. We have seen the word used by the city’s mayor, news outlets, our President, and across all forms of social media and everyday conversation. All of these people who have used it to refer to the rioters and looters in Baltimore have done so within the scope of its definition, but I cringe to think of what I will find in the dictionary 50 years from now when I look the word up then. Remember, the way that you use a word can—and often will—give it new meaning; just because you think that you are using the word properly today does not mean that your cavalier use of it will not give it new meaning tomorrow.
The Original J-Mo 
Nope. I’ll stick with calling them thugs…even when they’re not actively engaging in violent, antisocial behavior because “thug,” like those other words you’ve mentioned, has taken on a whole lifestyle meaning since the 1990s when Blacks took a hold of it as a cultural identifier.
And, as for some young Black having lost someone to police brutality or even at the hands of the police w/o any brutality, that’s very highly unlikely given the tiny number of times that happens. What a couple of hundred times a year in total out of a population of over 11 million?
All your doing is tacitly excusing and engaging in apologetic for the Blacks who tend to riot whenever they decide the law is treating them poorly.
You should look up the lyrics to “Thugz Mansion” by 2Pac ft. Nas and J. Phoenix. Everybody always cites 2Pac for popularizing the term “thug,” but the meaning ascribed to it in that song—as just one example—is so much bigger than anyone using it to refer to “blacks who tend to riot whenever they decide the law is treating them poorly.” You are free to decide whether or not you will continue to use the term in that context, but like I said in my post, I will continue to consider the people who do so as lazy individuals with an aversion to critical thinking.
Lazy? Yes, at least semantically. An aversion to critical thinking? Not hardly.
Again, you equate disliking or, at least, having written off a segment of the population due to their choices and behavior as a lack of critical thinking and, therefore, a wrong action. In truth, disliking or writing off that demographic may be and probably is due to critical thinking. Then again, it may not be. In any case, it’s a bit lazy and lacking in critical thought to make that judgement. 😉
Reply below.
In reply to your last comment jonolan, I would need evidence that supports your use of the word as an exercise in critical thinking. To dismiss a segment of the population on account of critical thinking implies that you have either verifiable data or first-hand experience to support such conclusions. Since I assume it is highly unlikely that you have first-hand experience with an entire population of roughly 11 million individuals (not even considering the fact that you would also need in depth analysis of said experience), I can only assume then that you have research which supports your conclusions. As of right now, you only have an hypothesis that supports your use of the word. Not even knowing what that hypothesis is, I can tell you right now that I have a substantial amount of evidence to disprove it. That being the case, try again.
Hmmmm….straw man or just sloppy thinking / writing? It has to one or the other…unless you’re yourself equating the whole of Black population within America’s borders with thugs.
Also, I didn’t claim that disliking or writing off that demographic is due to critical thinking as a fact, only as possibility and, in many cases, a probability. Be that as it may, there’s a plethora of statistics, research, and evidence to support the theory that many Blacks are just prone to violence and criminality and that they are like that because they really want to be both other than- and antithetical to normative American society. Hence, critical thought, presented with such evidence, would both lead to calling them thugs and writing them off as unsalvageable.
Now, one can, if one chooses, reject the validity of the evidence and research. One can even say that wrong conclusions were derived from the evidence, valid or not, but one cannot objectively just reject out of hand – if one cares about critical thought when conflicts with one’s own desires – the thought that they did engage in critical thought.
After viewing your Gravatar—and subsequently your Twitter and YouTube accounts—it is obvious that I am engaging in a dialogue with an out-of-the-closet white supremacist and borderline Satanist, but I will proceed as if you are still capable of changing your viewpoint when provided with new information.
As far as creating a straw man argument, I was simply using the framework that you provided for your argument. If anyone is guilty of creating a straw man, you need only look at yourself.
To address the second paragraph of your most recent reply, this “plethora of statistics, research, and evidence [that] support[s] the theory that many Blacks are just prone to violence and criminality and that they are like that because they really want to be both other than- and antithetical to normative American society” to which you refer is, in part, correct. I say in part because the latter half of your statement, which alludes to what normative American society is, refers to the fact that it is criminal in our country to simply be black. Research has shown that blacks and whites report drug usage almost equally in all categories but prison populations are still overwhelmingly black (most charged with non-violent, drug-related offenses) despite representing approximately 15-20% of the total population. Why is this? The answer is simple: law enforcement officers have been trained and equipped to target racial minorities. Stop and frisk laws overwhelmingly target blacks. LEOs are dispatched to areas of the community which are both low-income and are most densely populated by people of color. To say that blacks are more prone to breaking the law is putting the cart before the horse; the laws themselves make it criminal to be caught while black. I have friends who have been stopped by police officers while driving and when asked for an explanation as to why they were pulled over, the officer’s response was that they were “trying too hard to blend in.” Going the speed limit while being black apparently means that you are have something to hide. When given the “choice” between being black or blending in with normative American society, it is no surprise that most would choose the former, given that the latter option requires taking the route made popular by the King of Pop himself, Michael Jackson.
When I accuse you of not having given the proper amount of thought to your conclusions, this is what I mean. You have only done half of the work laid out before you when you look only at statistical data regarding those who follow the law versus those who do not. You have not determined the proper chain of events for cause and effect by stopping halfway and making your argument on such grounds. If you are capable of critical thought as you claim, then I have laid a task out before which requires your attention. If you insist that you are able to take on such a task, then do your homework, drop your preconceived notions of reality, and take a look at what the evidence really shows instead of stopping at the point where the evidence leans most in your favor.