You might be right, but IME, for kids’ hockey, it was thug. I’ve usually heard goon used in the NHL. Might just be on the teams I’m familiar with.
Bill Maher and Dennis Miller on SJWs (funny)… https://youtu.be/ipwMa5uT5es?t=2m5s
I’ve worked with many a kids hockey team and they still use goon. Ymmv
it is way too much…
a group of students at my alma mater have decided that a statue of Thomas Jefferson is highly offensive and should be removed.
Clearly the admissions office made some mistakes.
If they don’t want to go to a school where a historical figures attended, perhaps they could attend a newer school. Maybe University of Phoenix.
I am just wondering, if you use “thug” in conversation or writing, and someone respectfully tells you they find it offensive, and calmly explains to you why, if you would then stop using it because now you understand some do object to it, or if you would keep using it because you just think they are incorrect in that opinion, because you don’t believe the usage has really shifted, and they are being too sensitive without any good reason?
And if you don’t quit using it, was it worth their while to communicate their concerns about the word to you?
Some of y’all make me laugh. The term, thug or thug life, in the black community is not a direct connotation to being a criminal, rather, it refers to someone on the outside of mainstream culture, who starts off with very little to begin with, Thus, thug life is when you start at ground zero and yet still succeed. If any of you ever want to define urban colloquialisms or vernacular, go to rap genius. Ironically, an Rap Genius is an urban hip hop song dictionary started by three (non black) Yalies.
Thanks for the offer, but I’m happy using the dictionary.
Hmmm. Most Black folk I know use the term ‘thug’ to describe malevolent behavior, typically criminal. Perhaps it’s a generational thing (like so many other differences) within the Black community at large. However, I do not agree that running to use the dictionary as cover is appropriate. Years ago a mayoral staff in Washington DC or Atlanta (I forget which) used the word “niggardly” in a budget meeting I believe. He was a White fellow. Some of his Black colleagues were astounded (as were some White folks in the room) that he would be so unaware that the word could have been misconstrued. Yes, we’ve all been to college so many of us know the definition of niggardly, as did the city government staff person. But he should have known the intellectual peril of using the word in that particular setting, dictionary be d@mned.
In the criminal law settings I’ve been in, “thug” is used regardless of race.
I don’t think anyone was suggesting that the recent connotation ‘thug’ has acquired is the only one it now possesses. I certainly wasn’t.
Completely agree that context matters a great deal in determining meaning. No one using the word in a youth hockey context is likely to be in danger of being misunderstood. Nor in a courtroom, nor a rap/hip-hop context. To me at least, these are all pretty clear.
The fact that a word can have different connotations in different settings and contexts makes me wonder why some people have such a hard time believing that it could possess yet another one, in the context of and usage by those who like to spew hate on the internet.
@guidedbywire: I don’t think people have a hard time believing a word can mean different things in different contexts. I think the issue is whether it does and whether that matters. It seems to get used to refer to criminal or similar behavior (outside of a few specialized contexts). Now there is an allegation that it is a code word for being derogatory towards black people. Since the word is used so much, this looks a lot like people trying to find offense rather than it actually being offensive. And if they are offended, is there some reason we should give up a perfectly good word to cater to their heightened sensitivity?
This is a good question. On the one hand, I like to be a sensitive, nice person, and I’m willing to alter my language to avoid offending people inadvertently. On the other hand, I need to have some evidence, because I’m going to exert my judgment in determining whether to alter my language or not. In my judgment, for example, “thug” is on the line–I think it’s used by a lot of people in non-racial contexts, and I don’t think the racist connotation is really all that strong. As I say, it’s on the line. On the other hand, I feel differently about referring to people who are committing criminal acts as “animals,” because I do think that has been used quite a lot to demonize (or animalize, I guess) black people. That, I’d avoid. Obviously, people can have different perceptions of this.
One word – one word! – has prompted several pages of posts. Is it any wonder that students at Yale are heatedly discussing the much larger issues of identity and cultural appropriation? We’ve just proved here, on this forum, how complex and difficult these issues can be.
Forgive me, but since we are talking about the misappropriation of language, the students at Yale were not “discussing” anything. They were filmed screaming, stomping their little feet and threatening two accomplished academics who dared to question their weird little theories. And the issues debated on the last few pages of this thread are not at all “complex”. What we are debating is the pure expression of power. The ability of certain people to redefine language on a whim in order to cast aspersions on others making arguments they would rather not address. In my opinion, such tactics cheapen the actual issues purportedly under discussion.
This is CC! Think of one word items that have sparked long conversations: “Cecil” (the lion) “annoying” (threads) and … well, this one is 2 words… “chance me!”
Thug, similar to the term gangsta, in the context of hiphop and the younger generation, can also allude to positive attributes and connotations…
“What we are debating is the pure expression of power.” – You don’t think that’s a complex issue?
The kids at Yale were discussing the issue - in the pure expression of protest. A legitimate (if not always pretty or reasonable) reaction to political and social problems. Every major political movement – from abolitionism to giving women the right to vote to Obamacare – involved protests, marches, heated arguments and over-the-top discussion. It’s just the way we humans are.
The difference now is that people of a particular bent are seeking to remove the expression of certain thoughts from the realm of allowable debate and discourse. That is what is depicted in the Yale video. It is quite simply an expression of rage that others do not conform to your worldview. There is very little of the Lincoln Douglas debates in that.
“What we are debating is the pure expression of power. The ability of certain people to redefine language on a whim in order to cast aspersions on others making arguments they would rather not address”
BINGO.
^^ No one is “redefining language on a whim.” That’s simply untrue. Language CHANGES. Words gain new meanings all the time. Gay – used to mean something very different 100 years ago! African Americans once identified themselves as Negros. No more. A teenager today might say “As if” or, “That’s so random” – phrases that wouldn’t have been understood a generation ago.
To blame people for questioning the use of the word “thug” is disingenuous - or just plain uninformed.