Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And the whole point of discussing things here on Dakka Dakka is to always remember the rules - especially Rule #1.

Thanks!

I'm explaining some pretty basic human psychology here, not telling you I have all the answers.

Scotty I agree with your points in tribalism. I think it's also important to understand the role of media and political narratives in this issue. The actual demographics of a particular location are only meaningful if the narrative sold to the public includes that information. It's very easy for the media to spin white cop / black victim by omitting those demographics. As it is, the demographic issue may be a rabbit hole in the Gray case as some of the officers charged were black too.

So long story short - it doesn't matter if there are 99% black cops in an area if, in a white cop on black shooting victim case, the media omits that information. The people creating these problems are reacting to media information, and probably not researching the facts on their own.

Just as an aside, over on this side of the pond, I think "thug" is probably more closely associated with the stereotypical "chav" than anything else. I've certainly never seen it used in a racial way (with the caveat that I try to ignore rap music and the associated culture).

Use a word in it's intended definition, and because a certain group of people happens to be labelled with it, it now becomes racist.

It's bull gak. Thug has a very simple definition. "A violent criminal". Not a black violent criminal, not white, just a violent criminal. I don't care what skin color you are. If your an Oompa Loompa rioting in the streets, you're going to get called a thug. Don't want to be called a thug? Don't burn your damn city down around you.

The whole reason it's a dogwhistle is because it has plausible deniability.

 djones520 wrote:
Use a word in it's intended definition, and because a certain group of people happens to be labelled with it, it now becomes racist.

It's bull gak. Thug has a very simple definition. "A violent criminal". Not a black violent criminal, not white, just a violent criminal. I don't care what skin color you are. If your an Oompa Loompa rioting in the streets, you're going to get called a thug. Don't want to be called a thug? Don't burn your damn city down around you.

The irony is that it was Blacks that began using the word as a racial label back in the 90's through rap music. Now all of the sudden, it's George Orwell time, and if you use the word, you're a racist.

Will gangster/gansta likewise be considered to be a racist term?

 stanman wrote:
Will gangster/gansta likewise be considered to be a racist term?

I don't know if that particular word got the memory hole treatment yet, but when political correctness causes a mayor to say the following, you have to wonder:

"I wanted to clarify my comments on 'thugs.' When you speak out of frustration and anger, one can say things in a way that you don't mean," she wrote. "That night we saw misguided young people who need to be held accountable, but who also need support. And my comments then didn't convey that."

So rioters who are robbing other people as well as looting and burning businesses and other property are now misguided young people in need of support, and not to be insulted. Good to know.

Relapse wrote:
I don't know if that particular word got the memory hole treatment yet, but when political correctness causes a mayor to say the following, you have to wonder:

"I wanted to clarify my comments on 'thugs.' When you speak out of frustration and anger, one can say things in a way that you don't mean," she wrote. "That night we saw misguided young people who need to be held accountable, but who also need support. And my comments then didn't convey that."

So rioters who are robbing other people as well as looting and burning businesses and other property are now misguided young people in need of support, and not to be insulted. Good to know.

I don't think that insulting someone who is already feeling marginalised and aggrieved is useful, or likely to de-escalate the situation. That being said if individuals are behaving in criminal activity, such as rioting and looting, then calling out their criminal acts is entirely appropriate.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The whole reason it's a dogwhistle is because it has plausible deniability.

So how do you determine if someone is using a word in accordance with it's actual meaning, as opposed to is coded meaning? Should the possible misuse of a word by a group of people prevent its usage by the general population?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The whole reason it's a dogwhistle is because it has plausible deniability.

So how do you determine if someone is using a word in accordance with it's actual meaning, as opposed to is coded meaning? Should the possible misuse of a word by a group of people prevent its usage by the general population?

You'd have to look at the way they'd acted in the past, what sort of policies they'd supported. I don't think there's ever really a need for a politician to go around calling people "thugs" to begin with? Its only real use is in tough-on-crime rhetoric that doesn't actually work.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The whole reason it's a dogwhistle is because it has plausible deniability.

So how do you determine if someone is using a word in accordance with it's actual meaning, as opposed to is coded meaning? Should the possible misuse of a word by a group of people prevent its usage by the general population?

You'd have to look at the way they'd acted in the past, what sort of policies they'd supported. I don't think there's ever really a need for a politician to go around calling people "thugs" to begin with? Its only real use is in tough-on-crime rhetoric that doesn't actually work.

I disagree. I've spoken with Jews that suffered during WW2 that used the term in association with Nazis. Victims of violent crime often use it in regards to their assailants, whatever the color. I think it's ridiculous for Blacks to be offended by a word that was appropriated by Blacks to describe other Blacks and try to excise it from public usage.

Why shouldn't they be called thugs and scum?

That's what anybody who engages in rioting and looting is.

They don't give a gak about what happened to Gray. They've taken an opportunity to have their behaviour justified by well meaning but naive people. If they cared so much they would have respected his family's wishes.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why shouldn't they be called thugs and scum?

That's what anybody who engages in rioting and looting is.

They don't give a gak about what happened to Gray. They've taken an opportunity to have their behaviour justified by well meaning but naive people. If they cared so much they would have respected his family's wishes.

At this point I'm not even sure rioting is the wrong move. I don't think people are obliged to sit around and do nothing when they've tried to work with the system and it's turned against them at every step.

Saying "rioters just don't care that American police kill black people with impunity" is just... well. Citation needed I guess? Going against the family's wishes doesn't mean they don't care. It means they either don't know about those wishes or don't agree it's the right thing to do.

The really unfortunate thing is, again, there's so much hand-wringing about how terrible it is that some people are rioting, and for a lot of white people that's apparently all they care about - the possibility that they or their businesses may be harmed. As long as it's just black people being murdered by police officers then they're A-OK and ready to vote not to indict them on the grand jury.

Relapse wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

You'd have to look at the way they'd acted in the past, what sort of policies they'd supported. I don't think there's ever really a need for a politician to go around calling people "thugs" to begin with? Its only real use is in tough-on-crime rhetoric that doesn't actually work.

I disagree. I've spoken with Jews that suffered during WW2 that used the term in association with Nazis. Victims of violent crime often use it in regards to their assailants, whatever the color. I think it's ridiculous for Blacks to be offended by a word that was appropriated by Blacks to describe other Blacks and try to excise it from public usage.

Well, now you know that some people use it as a dogwhistle for "black people," and you have the choice of how you want to present yourself. You understand that when you call a black person a "thug" then that may be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as racially charged. It's up to you what you do with that knowledge. Personally, I'd suggest avoiding it in that circumstance, as it may cause hurt both to the subject and any black listeners, but if you feel the need to fight back against the ruling black overclass and their stranglehold on American language use then that's your call to make.

If I am in the position of calling someone a thug to their face, the fight is already on.
If you want to give up the English language, that's your right, too.

The English language changes all the time. That's just how natural language works. I mean, you can see it right in this example, where thug originally wasn't a word, then was borrowed from Hindi, then its meaning ended up changing to the usage you're defending today, and then it was again adopted as a code word by people who are not comfortable being seen as openly racist but nonetheless want to be able to communicate certain things to certain people. I'm sure you wouldn't want to stop using the word just because it has only been in use by English speakers for a couple of hundred years.

The language will adapt if it needs to. It will be fine.

So, after reading some of these replies, when would you say that "thug" became a codeword relative to it being adopted by black rap artists to describe their lifestyle?

 -Shrike- wrote:
So, after reading some of these replies, when would you say that "thug" became a codeword relative to it being adopted by black rap artists to describe their lifestyle?

According to what I've found, it is.


This is an interesting insight into the troubles in Baltimore, and goes some way to explaining things in a city, that at first blush, looking at a liberal party in charge with a racially diverse city council and police force, wouldn't be thought to be having to deal with such a situation:


http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/02/us/lord-of-the-flies-baltimore/index.html

The question becomes what can be done to alleviate the situation and the domino effect it produces.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
American police kill black people with impunity"

Yes...

It's a regular police based holocaust in the old US of A.



Pretending that this is somehow widespread or indicative of all Police in your country is ridiculous.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Pretending that this is somehow widespread or indicative of all Police in your country is ridiculous.

Thanks for letting us know what is going on in our own country from your thorough international news outlets.

nkelsch wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Pretending that this is somehow widespread or indicative of all Police in your country is ridiculous.

Thanks for letting us know what is going on in our own country from your thorough international news outlets.

I'll remember that for every time an America comments on something from outside their country!

 Medium of Death wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
American police kill black people with impunity"

Yes...

It's a regular police based holocaust in the old US of A.



Pretending that this is somehow widespread or indicative of all Police in your country is ridiculous.

3 in the span of a month is a symptom of a problem existing. And I'm not even counting the justicied shootings here.

A guy shot in the back while fleeing.
A guy shot because a pay-to-play cop wanted to taze him when there was zero reason to even do that.
A guy killed by falsely arresting him, breaking his neck, and letting him slam around the back of a van and giving zero feths when they noticed him already passed out.

 d-usa wrote:


3 in the span of a month is a symptom of a problem existing. And I'm not even counting the justicied shootings here.

A guy shot in the back while fleeing.
A guy shot because a pay-to-play cop wanted to taze him when there was zero reason to even do that.
A guy killed by falsely arresting him, breaking his neck, and letting him slam around the back of a van and giving zero feths when they noticed him already passed out.

And the media still refuses to acknowledge the white kid killed by the black cop in Utah at the same time that Brown was killed in Ferguson.

Please, let's stop pretending blacks are the only ones being killed by police officers in the US.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/

It's more about this (from the article):

McCoy noted that this has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks.

"Felony crime is highly correlated with poverty, and race continues to be highly correlated with poverty in the USA," McCoy said. "It is the most difficult and searing problem in this whole mess."

 d-usa wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
American police kill black people with impunity"

Yes...

It's a regular police based holocaust in the old US of A.



Pretending that this is somehow widespread or indicative of all Police in your country is ridiculous.

3 in the span of a month is a symptom of a problem existing. And I'm not even counting the justicied shootings here.

A guy shot in the back while fleeing.
A guy shot because a pay-to-play cop wanted to taze him when there was zero reason to even do that.
A guy killed by falsely arresting him, breaking his neck, and letting him slam around the back of a van and giving zero feths when they noticed him already passed out.

Let's not forget other things like Heien v. North Carolina from December of last year that made it okay for police to violate our Fourth Amendment rights even if officer is ignorant of the law. While we're at it, should be bring up the violation of due process known as civil forfeiture?

So yeah, there is some gak wrong with police in America it needs to be addressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


3 in the span of a month is a symptom of a problem existing. And I'm not even counting the justicied shootings here.

A guy shot in the back while fleeing.
A guy shot because a pay-to-play cop wanted to taze him when there was zero reason to even do that.
A guy killed by falsely arresting him, breaking his neck, and letting him slam around the back of a van and giving zero feths when they noticed him already passed out.

And the media still refuses to acknowledge the white kid killed by the black cop in Utah at the same time that Brown was killed in Ferguson.

Please, let's stop pretending blacks are the only ones being killed by police officers in the US.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/

It's more about this (from the article):

McCoy noted that this has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks.

"Felony crime is highly correlated with poverty, and race continues to be highly correlated with poverty in the USA," McCoy said. "It is the most difficult and searing problem in this whole mess."

Stop with the "media ignored so-and-so" gak, because it's just not true. See below, because D says it better.

As far as the amount of people of what race are killed by police in the US... yes, more white people were killed by police. Which makes sense, because white people make up 77% of people in the United States but black people only make up 13%. The article you linked even drills home the point that raw numbers don't tell the whole story (they repeat it again in their ruling of the statement be "Half True": black people are three times as likely to be killed in a police confrontation compared to white people.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


3 in the span of a month is a symptom of a problem existing. And I'm not even counting the justicied shootings here.

A guy shot in the back while fleeing.
A guy shot because a pay-to-play cop wanted to taze him when there was zero reason to even do that.
A guy killed by falsely arresting him, breaking his neck, and letting him slam around the back of a van and giving zero feths when they noticed him already passed out.

And the media still refuses to acknowledge the white kid killed by the black cop in Utah at the same time that Brown was killed in Ferguson.

Please, let's stop pretending blacks are the only ones being killed by police officers in the US.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/

It's more about this (from the article):

McCoy noted that this has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks.

"Felony crime is highly correlated with poverty, and race continues to be highly correlated with poverty in the USA," McCoy said. "It is the most difficult and searing problem in this whole mess."

This will be my last time addressing the bs "the media only wanted to talk about the black victim and not the white victim" story. We debunked it multiple times in that thread and I will debunk it one more time here. If you want to believe this idiotic story and want to keep on repeating it I can't stop you, but it doesn't make it any less bs.

The killing in Ferguson got the exact same national media coverage as the killing of the white guy: a grand total of ZERO fething stories by the national media. We posted the search results from every major news outlet and none of them covered the shooting in Ferguson.

The first time the shooting got mentioned at the national level was when the national news covered the fething protest and riots. That's it. They didn't cover the shooting, they covered the result of the shooting when it escalated to that level a couple days later.

The "lack of coverage" of the white guy getting shot is due to there not being protests or riots. It's not some giant conspiracy to keep the white man down, it's that local police shootings are not news worthy at a national level but riots are.

Feel free to repeat the story again next month, but it will still be false.

The local stories here stated that the man shot by the Black officer was not compliing with requests from the officer and appeared to be drawing a weapon. Even though he was unarmed, the shooting was justified, since it was a split second, life or death descision.

Relapse wrote:
The local stories here stated that the man shot by the Black officer was not compliing with requests from the officer and appeared to be drawing a weapon. Even though he was unarmed, the shooting was justified, since it was a split second, life or death descision.

Like the black guy shot in St. Louis shortly after Ferguson that nobody had a problem with.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


3 in the span of a month is a symptom of a problem existing. And I'm not even counting the justicied shootings here.

A guy shot in the back while fleeing.
A guy shot because a pay-to-play cop wanted to taze him when there was zero reason to even do that.
A guy killed by falsely arresting him, breaking his neck, and letting him slam around the back of a van and giving zero feths when they noticed him already passed out.

And the media still refuses to acknowledge the white kid killed by the black cop in Utah at the same time that Brown was killed in Ferguson.

Please, let's stop pretending blacks are the only ones being killed by police officers in the US.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/

It's more about this (from the article):

McCoy noted that this has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks.

"Felony crime is highly correlated with poverty, and race continues to be highly correlated with poverty in the USA," McCoy said. "It is the most difficult and searing problem in this whole mess."

This will be my last time addressing the bs "the media only wanted to talk about the black victim and not the white victim" story. We debunked it multiple times in that thread and I will debunk it one more time here. If you want to believe this idiotic story and want to keep on repeating it I can't stop you, but it doesn't make it any less bs.

The killing in Ferguson got the exact same national media coverage as the killing of the white guy: a grand total of ZERO fething stories by the national media. We posted the search results from every major news outlet and none of them covered the shooting in Ferguson.

The first time the shooting got mentioned at the national level was when the national news covered the fething protest and riots. That's it. They didn't cover the shooting, they covered the result of the shooting when it escalated to that level a couple days later.

The "lack of coverage" of the white guy getting shot is due to there not being protests or riots. It's not some giant conspiracy to keep the white man down, it's that local police shootings are not news worthy at a national level but riots are.

Feel free to repeat the story again next month, but it will still be false.

Great post, D-USA! This isn't about keeping the white man down (haha) or about how police are only targeting black people for mistreatment (although they are more often mistreated.). This is about police mistreatment in general. This is about a general lack of accountability in police forces around the country when cops abuse their power and seemingly get away with it. All those good cops out there need to break their wall of silence and get rid of their corrupt and power-hungry counterparts on the force.

The old and cliched adage about evil triumphing when good men do nothing springs to mind. Maybe Baltimore will spark a sea-change in how police conduct their business. I'm not holidng my breath though.

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The local stories here stated that the man shot by the Black officer was not compliing with requests from the officer and appeared to be drawing a weapon. Even though he was unarmed, the shooting was justified, since it was a split second, life or death descision.

Like the black guy shot in St. Louis shortly after Ferguson that nobody had a problem with.

In both cases, the officers were correctly justified.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
This is about police mistreatment in general. This is about a general lack of accountability in police forces around the country when cops abuse their power and seemingly get away with it. All those good cops out there need to break their wall of silence and get rid of their corrupt and power-hungry counterparts on the force.

The old and cliched adage about evil triumphing when good men do nothing springs to mind. Maybe Baltimore will spark a sea-change in how police conduct their business. I'm not holidng my breath though.

One of the biggest problems is some officers (especially in Baltimore), police feel like they're the real victims here, that they are expendable. They feel like they're the ones always getting screwed, not the other way around.

And then you have stuff like this and you wonder why people in Baltimore have no trust in their legal system.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
This is about police mistreatment in general. This is about a general lack of accountability in police forces around the country when cops abuse their power and seemingly get away with it. All those good cops out there need to break their wall of silence and get rid of their corrupt and power-hungry counterparts on the force.

The old and cliched adage about evil triumphing when good men do nothing springs to mind. Maybe Baltimore will spark a sea-change in how police conduct their business. I'm not holidng my breath though.

One of the biggest problems is some officers (especially in Baltimore), police feel like they're the real victims here, that they are expendable. They feel like they're the ones always getting screwed, not the other way around.

Very interesting point. Observe the actions of the NewYork police towards their mayor for further confirmation on this.