Maybe that is why my blogging is such an enjoyable hobby. The Thesaurus is my best friend, especially when driving home an idea.
I can usually get my point across to others by using words. Of course, I have to be careful when sending something short and quick so that I don't seem abrupt. And I add emoticons to help soften a request or complaint.
So imagine my surprise when I posted on a young lady's FB page only to be barraged by accusatory comments regarding the word "thug."
She posted an opinion page from a small city newspaper disparaging protesters who cause so much destruction and trouble.
I commented "One stupid person's stupid opinion. I do wish there was something we could do to STOP the paid thugs that go to the protests... especially those who were arrested TWICE for bringing violence to protests. Give everyone some peace of mind ..."
One of her friends posted
"thug" is a word that has deeply racist implications, hth! to which I replied
No, no, not what I meant at all! I'm using this definition for THUG:
"thug" is a word that has deeply racist implications, hth! to which I replied
No, no, not what I meant at all! I'm using this definition for THUG:
noun
1. a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal
A different friend chimed in with "The word "thug" has racial undertones that have been reinforced through media and socialization. Rarely (it has at times) has the word been used to depict whites whereas it has been normalized or often equated with inner-city Black males who may or may not be part of any organized crime. It has also become synonymous with impoverished people of color. Reference The New Jim Crow, Unsteady March, Responsibility for Justice, and other texts that lend a critical race lens to communication and depictions.
I accept that you do not mean it in a racialized way, but the truth is that your intentions have little to do with the history of the word."
Me: I will try not to use any more words until you approve them! 🤓
Him: I am sorry that you believe you are being censored simply by being educated.
Me: I don't quite feel "educated". Which dictionary is OK to use? Webster-Merriam? Wikipedia?
Him: I respect your decision to only utilize a single type of information to attempt to make your point. As a former English Teacher, I would find it problematic to teach students the basic definition of words absent context. It is amazing how language develops and takes upon deeper meanings-- sometimes positive and other times negative. Maybe you should look into some linguistic books?
Me: Once someone brought up the idea that thug WAS a racist word, I did check several sources. I pointed out (and posted, twice) the definition I was using in this case. No need to suggest linguistic books. I'm respectful enough to define my words should someone not understand them they way I meant.
Him: why continue using the word knowing the context then, if you did the research? Why not choose an alternate word knowing the racial undertones?
Me: My sources do not mention the racial undertones .... but I did change my original statement to "criminals" instead of "thugs". That work OK?
Him: I appreciate you being willing to alter your word usage as it can be damaging to some populations.
Whippersnapper! It was my own fault for not simply taking down my first statement. I must have been argumentative yesterday. There's no last word with a liberal millennial these days ....