All of the tweets today were funny...could have voted for any of them. That said, my competitive nature always make me hope I'm picking the lead vote getter.
On word choices...I don't think I've ever used the word lashing or lashed in conversation. When I've heard or read it I don't think I've thought "that word means whipping." To me it brings to mind quickly (possibly angrily) responding to someone or tying something down. If I say something to someone that causes them to quickly turn around, does this mean I can't say or write "he whipped his head around" in response? As far as "thug" I see it as a synonym for bully. Yes, it's more violent than bully, but isn't the level of violence in a bullying incident up to the person being bullied? I'm sorry, but a person who punches a pregnant woman in the stomach causing her to miscarry is a (among other descriptors) is a thug, regardless of color.
I think of a thug as a criminal, which would be an apt description for someone who assaults a pregnant woman, as you've described. Or is convicted of 34 felonies, perhaps.
"Bully" also seems like a good option under different circumstances. We have choices, from what Merriam-Webster has to say.
And I've always thought of "lash" as relating to a whip. It's a really strong word to use, and the synonyms are equally violent. A little research for a more suitable choice seems well worth the effort. Lazy writing always causes problems.
Regarding the White Sox performance thus far; when I first saw Night of the Living Dead, it scared the hell out of me, until about half way thru (I think it was a scene at a gas station). Then it became to me so outlandish that I was able to relax and laugh. That’s the stage I’m at with the White Sox. Relax and laugh.
There wasn’t any gas station scene in Night. You’re thinking of the scene where Ben, Tom and Judy make their way to the gas pump in the backyard of the farmhouse that they’re barricaded in, only for a fiery disaster to ensue that turns Tom and Judy into barbecue for the zombies (or, as they’re referred to throughout the movie, “ghouls”).
I think that's appropriate. Afterall, what are ghouls? They appear out of nowhere to scare you. Much of the present Sox roster appeared out of nowhere. We didn't know who they were or where they came from. They scare us into believing they are major league ballplayers. After awhile they vanish and return in the form of more players we don't know. The end result is dread of losing a perfectly awful team to Nashville.
I have been a White Sox fan all my life having been raised by a Sox fan. I would welcome the team moving to Nashville as I would feel more comfortable attending games there!
I feel sympathy for the current young players who are losing constantly likely because they've been moved to the majors before they're truly ready. I hope they are resilient enough to overcome this extreme mismanagement of the team and themselves individually. It would be a shame if they worked hard all these years just to have the misfortune of being judged "one and done" based on this fiasco.
You make a wonderful comment. There letters to the editor and comments online about the wonderful things that are happening in the minors. Some of those players are already with the team or have been. How has that worked out? The first thing the wonderfully speedy Ellis did was get picked off. He is now back in the minors. Let them experience a little success before coming up. Nothing can save the present big league tram.
As far as I know, “hooligan”, “ruffian” and “bully” are not being claimed by anyone to be racial slurs (for now), but we can be certain that that will change soon enough. “Goon” is another one, but given that it is one opening consonant away from an undeniable racial slur, even I’d refrain from it.
Personally, I think your three options indicate actions many steps lower than those perpetrated by a "thug." "Thugs," to me, indicate some sort of violence. As always, your mileage may vary!
Can anyone decide that a word offends them and thereby outlaw it? Speaking as a hair-challenged person, can I announce (with any effect) that “balding” is offensive to me and make everyone stop using it?
So “thuggish” means “characterized by violent behavior, especially of a criminal nature.” I wouldn’t think it would be used very often to describe a foreign government.
Or Putin's regime, for sure. I tend to think of "strongmen" as quintessential "thugs." They're gangsterish, lawless except insofar as they subscribe to a law unto themselves, typically violent and selfish in pursuit of aims, unburdened by decent consideration for the rights of others. I like the word in relation to such people because, in one blunt, evocative syllable, it strips them of their status as important leaders and dismisses their messianic dreams, their deep thoughts, their grand designs as so stupid and crazy as to be thoroughly irrelevant. No, you're not the heir to Peter the Great, the rightful champion of the Russian people and their place in the world, blah blah. You're just a thug.
Here I thought you were intelligent EZ, but paying $7.20 to take the Skyway is insanely stupid!
There are several other ways to go, either the Calumet Expwy to I-80/94 or a couple of different ways taking streets on the South Side, all of which don't have such an outrageous toll.
So it takes you an extra 20 minutes, BFD!
And the Indiana Toll Road still has toll gates at its toll plazas, even though Indiana is part of the EZ Pass System. At least Indiana go rid of that stupid I-Zoom name for its toll paying devices.
The alternative—I-94–is a less pleasant drive, both scenically and wrt volume of heavy trucks. Think of the grisly toll gates as a mechanism for keeping I-90 less densely traveled and therefore (once you’re past the damn gates) a more gracious travel experience.
The tollway is worthwhile for me and my family, and we use it regularly. If there’s something else I really want to buy, I’ll use a different $7.20 to buy it.
quite harsh. time has a value; and in some cases that value can be monetized. it's not worth $7.20 to you - that's fine, free country, your choice.
there might be some other purchase you would make at a higher price than i would be willing to pay - that doesn't make you stupid, much less insanely stupid, for your decision.
while i don't care for the $7.20 toll, it's below my point of indifference. and the estimate of 20 minutes savings via the Skyway - or, conversely, 20 min's longer to take the 94 all the way - is frequently an underestimate. the backups on 94 in/into/heading into IN are frequently miles long. hardly ever a backup on the IN Toll Road, at least up to the I-94 interchange.
EZ Pass also 'works' in Ohio BUT you have to stop at every toll booth before the gate will go up. And as I recall, the toll booths appear about every 5 miles.
Open Road Tolling is the only reasonable way to run toll roads. - Colorado does it with license plate cameras and a bill that arrives eventually.
I've been crisscrossing Indiana and Ohio on the Ohio and Indiana tollways on a regular basis since 1960. On both of them you used to get a ticket when you got on and paid when you got off based on how far you had driven. Now, in theory, in both states your EZPass identifies you when you get on and charges you appropriately when you get off. It's the same thing with the New York tollway. Perhaps twice in the last couple of years I've had to stop and deal with the situation when something didn't register correctly, but it was sufficiently straightforward that I don't even remember what it took.
About 7 or 8 years ago our GPS routed us onto a tollway outside of Toronto. There was no warning and no way to pay, not even a web site like the Illinois open road sites. About a month later I got a bill in the mail for the toll.
In regards to the word lash, perhaps we should review how the word czar John McWhorter defines its usage. In your past articles you find his word viewpoint very persuasive.
In fact, I am surprised a McWhorter quote was not included in the original set of comments.
My take on McWhorter's comments are that they are an observation on how the connotation of "thug" has changed. It doea not necessarily mean that he is offended by it.
In the bubble I live in I had not noticed a change. But I think he has a point. There is a rapper called Young Thug currently on trial in Atlanta in. RICO case
i'm a [long-time] Sox fan, and i'm not rooting for them to break the season loss record. but i have not watched a single inning of a single Sox game this season; and have listened to a game on the radio once, for 3 innings. like so many of their games this season, the RPs blew the game late.
cured me of any desire to listen again, or watch, soon.
Boston has 3 murders in 2024. What is Boston doing that Chicago is not. I have not been able to figure out an explanation. Worthy of discussion? Maybe your readers will have an insight.
The cause of the majority of crimes in Chicago is gangs. All the efforts the city tries - weapons buy back, more police on the street, shot tracker, camera, etc., etc., will do nothing until the city finds a way to rid itself of the gangs.
re the Skyway toll booth - never have had a problem ... w- my transponder. i have seen others stuck at the unopening arm. but it has rarely affected me - there are so many toll lanes on the SKyway.
my only real problem - problems - w- the Skyway are the stupid move by the polticians [was that Richard M?] to sell the Skyway, and the usurious, ann'ly increasing tolls.
I would like to outlaw the word "white". It is offensive to many in the formerly minority community. It implies racism and privilege. It implies superiority in personal attributes. It assumes superiority over other types of people. It implies goodness, purity, and joy- attributes not available to people not described that way. Therefore based on the discussion of terms offensive to certain cultural groups, I must press for stopping usage of the term "white".
I had a black drill sergeant tell me he was going to be over me like white on rice. And well…he did press me hard. He presented things as good or bad, right or wrong, black or white.
He did refer to me as white boy or college boy. Should we drop college as an acceptable word as well?
And does this mean I have to turn in my white noise machine too?
I'm pushing back on the woke police attempting to outlaw the term thug out of racial sensitivities.
If someone commits a robbery with violence, that is by definition a thuggish act. If someone carjacks by putting a gun in someone's face, that is a thuggish act. The perpetrators of these crimes are indeed thugs.
The problem is that these crimes are disproportionately committed by black offenders. So in the woke mind, that results in too many blacks being called thugs and ergo, it must be a racist term.
We often hear people pontificate that this nation needs to have a very uncomfortable discussion about race. Well here's an unavoidable part of that discussion, that our country is suffering a violent predominantly black crime wave.
The FBI provides an annual Uniform Crime Report on criminal activity in the US, and they capture data by offender's ethnicity. For the past several years, blacks have represented over 50% of offenders on all homicides and all robberies nationally. Think about that - HALF of all homicides and robberies in the country. Blacks represent approximately 13% of our population, which means they are disportunately committing these crimes by about 400%.
As a direct consequence to these criminal acts, blacks are also way overrepresented in the criminal justice system and in our prisons. Which then resulted in far left prosecutors in major cities like Kim Foxx embarking on a crusade to decrease penalties and incarceration for blacks irrespective of the offenses they have committed in the name of social justice, despite the fact that blacks are also heavily disproportionately the victims of violent crime. Very misguided and simply a prescription for more violence from repeat offenders who are not removed from the streets as they should have been.
Of course, discussion of this must include an examination of root causes which likely include racism and poverty. But that does not change the facts on the ground that our society is suffering from a predominantly black violent crime wave today.
So to circle back where this started, anyone who commits violent robberies and carjackings and other violent crimes is indeed a thug. And I will continue to refer to them as thugs regardless of their color.
Of course you are going to continue to use the word thug, David. Because why be sensitive and stop using a term that hurts and offends other people? And while you’re at it, why not suggest, as you did, that “our country is suffering a violent predominantly black crime wave.” I mean, so what that most violent crimes nationally are committed by white people according to the very Uniform Crime Report you cited. You wouldn’t want to complain about a white crime wave. It’s so much more satisfying to be self-righteous about the violent black people, right?
Okay, I guess I have to post a sarcasm alert. I just find your comments to be so upsetting. This is not a QAnon or 4chan message board. Is white grievance appropriate here?
Hi Joanie - I'm sorry that a simple statement of facts upsets you. I guess reality can do that to people.
Where are you getting the information that whites commit a majority of violent crime in this country? The uniform crime reports reflects that blacks commit over 50% of homicides and robberies which are by definition violent crimes.
The fact is that blacks as a group are disproportionately committing crime to about four times their share of the population. Whites in stark contrast are committing crimes to a much lower representation to their share of the population. So it is objectively false to state there is a white violent crime wave occurring, but simply a statement of fact that there is indeed a black violent crime wave occurring in our country.
If people are unwilling to acknowledge facts, that makes any type of reasoned discussion on the subject impossible, let alone attempting to find solutions to the problem. And that simply leaves us locked in to the problem.
Facts don’t bother me. It’s the racist spin you put on the facts that bothers me. I get the information that whites commit a majority of the violent crime in this country from the same source you cited (see below) which states that in 2022 whites committed 389,295 violent crimes, and blacks committed 378,448 violent crimes. When whites commit a majority of the violent crimes, which they do, only a racist would say that we have a black violent crime wave occurring in our country. In my view, it’s obvious that you, like so many people that are going to vote for Trump, have a white grievance chip on your shoulder, and that you dig portraying black people as less reasonable, decent, and worthy than white people. It bothers me.
Joanie - You truly diminish yourself and your credibility when you resort to name calling and bring Trump into a conversation that is not material to him. The fact is that blacks are committing violent crime about four times more than their representation in society, and whites are committing violent crime many times less than their representation in society. So yes, a black violent crime wave is what it is with the high rate of violent crime per capita in the black community. When people like you simply call facts racist and refuse to discuss them with reason, they will only perpetuate or get worse.
Generally agree David that some conversations are being avoided, and you can't heal a community without honest conversation. It's also always interesting to see disproportionate data used only when it helps your cause. More whites are killed by police, but blacks are disproportionately killed. Then the same people ignore disproportions with crime, welfare, etc.
However, to push back a bit on your push back, part of the evolution of the word "thug" happened when some started using it for any black kid, not just criminals:
From the essay: "They decide you’re a thug from the moment you’re born, so they lock you up in disproportionate numbers. Then they point to the fact that you are locked up in disproportionate numbers to prove that you’re a thug."
While that statement is way too simplistic, it does include unfortunate truths. Once a perception is made, it's hard to shake. The recent evolution of "thug" might be comparable to "spade" in the 1920's, and "spook" during WWII. Both words are still used regularly as non-slurs today, but because someone decided to use them as racial slurs, new connotations were born.
Hi Ted - Thanks for your reply and all good thoughts. This raises the question - is my use of the term thug inappropriate even when it addresses specific individuals who commit thuggish acts, because others racially misuse the term? There can be a fair debate on that, but my fear is that if we ban every word that anyone uses inappropriately, we are going to have a very large vocabulary of forbidden words.
Agree, it does boil down to that question, but IMO not worth it for now. Words evolve, some that are on the hot seat now may not be in a few years. In the meantime, we can only hope that people understand this is near impossible to keep up with, especially for those of a certain age, and they also realize word policing isn't real activism, and ultimately doesn't solve much.
All of the tweets today were funny...could have voted for any of them. That said, my competitive nature always make me hope I'm picking the lead vote getter.
On word choices...I don't think I've ever used the word lashing or lashed in conversation. When I've heard or read it I don't think I've thought "that word means whipping." To me it brings to mind quickly (possibly angrily) responding to someone or tying something down. If I say something to someone that causes them to quickly turn around, does this mean I can't say or write "he whipped his head around" in response? As far as "thug" I see it as a synonym for bully. Yes, it's more violent than bully, but isn't the level of violence in a bullying incident up to the person being bullied? I'm sorry, but a person who punches a pregnant woman in the stomach causing her to miscarry is a (among other descriptors) is a thug, regardless of color.
I think of a thug as a criminal, which would be an apt description for someone who assaults a pregnant woman, as you've described. Or is convicted of 34 felonies, perhaps.
"Bully" also seems like a good option under different circumstances. We have choices, from what Merriam-Webster has to say.
And I've always thought of "lash" as relating to a whip. It's a really strong word to use, and the synonyms are equally violent. A little research for a more suitable choice seems well worth the effort. Lazy writing always causes problems.
Regarding the White Sox performance thus far; when I first saw Night of the Living Dead, it scared the hell out of me, until about half way thru (I think it was a scene at a gas station). Then it became to me so outlandish that I was able to relax and laugh. That’s the stage I’m at with the White Sox. Relax and laugh.
There wasn’t any gas station scene in Night. You’re thinking of the scene where Ben, Tom and Judy make their way to the gas pump in the backyard of the farmhouse that they’re barricaded in, only for a fiery disaster to ensue that turns Tom and Judy into barbecue for the zombies (or, as they’re referred to throughout the movie, “ghouls”).
I think that's appropriate. Afterall, what are ghouls? They appear out of nowhere to scare you. Much of the present Sox roster appeared out of nowhere. We didn't know who they were or where they came from. They scare us into believing they are major league ballplayers. After awhile they vanish and return in the form of more players we don't know. The end result is dread of losing a perfectly awful team to Nashville.
I have been a White Sox fan all my life having been raised by a Sox fan. I would welcome the team moving to Nashville as I would feel more comfortable attending games there!
I feel sympathy for the current young players who are losing constantly likely because they've been moved to the majors before they're truly ready. I hope they are resilient enough to overcome this extreme mismanagement of the team and themselves individually. It would be a shame if they worked hard all these years just to have the misfortune of being judged "one and done" based on this fiasco.
You make a wonderful comment. There letters to the editor and comments online about the wonderful things that are happening in the minors. Some of those players are already with the team or have been. How has that worked out? The first thing the wonderfully speedy Ellis did was get picked off. He is now back in the minors. Let them experience a little success before coming up. Nothing can save the present big league tram.
Thanks! I admit it’s been 40 years since I saw it.
Back to using "thug". what word can we use in it's place?
As far as I know, “hooligan”, “ruffian” and “bully” are not being claimed by anyone to be racial slurs (for now), but we can be certain that that will change soon enough. “Goon” is another one, but given that it is one opening consonant away from an undeniable racial slur, even I’d refrain from it.
Personally, I think your three options indicate actions many steps lower than those perpetrated by a "thug." "Thugs," to me, indicate some sort of violence. As always, your mileage may vary!
I agree. The first too are just too Victorian.
Can anyone decide that a word offends them and thereby outlaw it? Speaking as a hair-challenged person, can I announce (with any effect) that “balding” is offensive to me and make everyone stop using it?
Rick, if we ever meet in person, I promise to call you Rick…Not Baldy!
"Can anyone decide that a word offends them and thereby outlaw it?" No, of course they cannot. Enough of this tedious "word police" nonsense.
Hooligan is what they call the British soccer fans that cause trouble everywhere they go.
The Russians also use it to describe anyone that defies their government's authority.
“Goon” is one consonant away from two different racial slurs, but I don’t think anyone thinks of “goon” as a racist term.
A$$hole is a good generic substitute.
“Tough” used as a noun, or “mugger” are also synonyms of “thug.”
Would you do a word substitution in the sentence "China has a thuggish regime."
Or does the context suffice to remove racial connotations of the term? If we substituted Sierra Leone for China would that make a difference?
So “thuggish” means “characterized by violent behavior, especially of a criminal nature.” I wouldn’t think it would be used very often to describe a foreign government.
I read exactly that about China in The Economist several years ago.
At the risk of triggering Godwin's Law, one could also use the phrase to describe the Nazi regime in Germany
Or Putin's regime, for sure. I tend to think of "strongmen" as quintessential "thugs." They're gangsterish, lawless except insofar as they subscribe to a law unto themselves, typically violent and selfish in pursuit of aims, unburdened by decent consideration for the rights of others. I like the word in relation to such people because, in one blunt, evocative syllable, it strips them of their status as important leaders and dismisses their messianic dreams, their deep thoughts, their grand designs as so stupid and crazy as to be thoroughly irrelevant. No, you're not the heir to Peter the Great, the rightful champion of the Russian people and their place in the world, blah blah. You're just a thug.
I am and always have been a big fan of jagoff.
Here I thought you were intelligent EZ, but paying $7.20 to take the Skyway is insanely stupid!
There are several other ways to go, either the Calumet Expwy to I-80/94 or a couple of different ways taking streets on the South Side, all of which don't have such an outrageous toll.
So it takes you an extra 20 minutes, BFD!
And the Indiana Toll Road still has toll gates at its toll plazas, even though Indiana is part of the EZ Pass System. At least Indiana go rid of that stupid I-Zoom name for its toll paying devices.
The alternative—I-94–is a less pleasant drive, both scenically and wrt volume of heavy trucks. Think of the grisly toll gates as a mechanism for keeping I-90 less densely traveled and therefore (once you’re past the damn gates) a more gracious travel experience.
The tollway is worthwhile for me and my family, and we use it regularly. If there’s something else I really want to buy, I’ll use a different $7.20 to buy it.
quite harsh. time has a value; and in some cases that value can be monetized. it's not worth $7.20 to you - that's fine, free country, your choice.
there might be some other purchase you would make at a higher price than i would be willing to pay - that doesn't make you stupid, much less insanely stupid, for your decision.
while i don't care for the $7.20 toll, it's below my point of indifference. and the estimate of 20 minutes savings via the Skyway - or, conversely, 20 min's longer to take the 94 all the way - is frequently an underestimate. the backups on 94 in/into/heading into IN are frequently miles long. hardly ever a backup on the IN Toll Road, at least up to the I-94 interchange.
EZ Pass also 'works' in Ohio BUT you have to stop at every toll booth before the gate will go up. And as I recall, the toll booths appear about every 5 miles.
Open Road Tolling is the only reasonable way to run toll roads. - Colorado does it with license plate cameras and a bill that arrives eventually.
I've been crisscrossing Indiana and Ohio on the Ohio and Indiana tollways on a regular basis since 1960. On both of them you used to get a ticket when you got on and paid when you got off based on how far you had driven. Now, in theory, in both states your EZPass identifies you when you get on and charges you appropriately when you get off. It's the same thing with the New York tollway. Perhaps twice in the last couple of years I've had to stop and deal with the situation when something didn't register correctly, but it was sufficiently straightforward that I don't even remember what it took.
About 7 or 8 years ago our GPS routed us onto a tollway outside of Toronto. There was no warning and no way to pay, not even a web site like the Illinois open road sites. About a month later I got a bill in the mail for the toll.
In regards to the word lash, perhaps we should review how the word czar John McWhorter defines its usage. In your past articles you find his word viewpoint very persuasive.
In fact, I am surprised a McWhorter quote was not included in the original set of comments.
My take on McWhorter's comments are that they are an observation on how the connotation of "thug" has changed. It doea not necessarily mean that he is offended by it.
In the bubble I live in I had not noticed a change. But I think he has a point. There is a rapper called Young Thug currently on trial in Atlanta in. RICO case
Skeptic, in the above instance I am wondering how McWhorter feels about the use of lash.
Eric Zorn is asking for input and I expected he would check on what he thinks.
Thanks Peter. I have been too hasty reading through the PS and comments today.
I will stay tuned to learn the new acceptable term for the hair which extends off of my eyelids.
Maybe “low brows”?
Perfect! Love it!
Wait…no option for “Cubs AND White Sox fan”? I’ll die on this hill.
I think that the missing answer was "I am a Cubs fan and far too worried about them to spend time thinking about any oher team."
Ok, the Pink Floyd dialog is amusing (currently in the lead) but how ever does it qualify as a visual txeet?
Regarding OP, all I hear is blah, blah, blah.
EZ, your birthday is Jan. 6? What's that been like? I feel for people who have birthdays on infamous dates.
My guess is that Sox fans who are rooting for 121 losses aren't actually watching the games. If you're tuning in each night you want to see them win.
i'm a [long-time] Sox fan, and i'm not rooting for them to break the season loss record. but i have not watched a single inning of a single Sox game this season; and have listened to a game on the radio once, for 3 innings. like so many of their games this season, the RPs blew the game late.
cured me of any desire to listen again, or watch, soon.
Boston has 3 murders in 2024. What is Boston doing that Chicago is not. I have not been able to figure out an explanation. Worthy of discussion? Maybe your readers will have an insight.
Gordon, that blows my mind. Where was this reported? Sounds too good to be true, but if accurate worth many discussions.
Looks like this is reported in multiple media outlets. Generally in 2024 crime is way down and it is really way down in Boston and Philly
Lack of drug gangs is probably why.
The cause of the majority of crimes in Chicago is gangs. All the efforts the city tries - weapons buy back, more police on the street, shot tracker, camera, etc., etc., will do nothing until the city finds a way to rid itself of the gangs.
oooh, tough vote on today's vTotW candidates.
re the Skyway toll booth - never have had a problem ... w- my transponder. i have seen others stuck at the unopening arm. but it has rarely affected me - there are so many toll lanes on the SKyway.
my only real problem - problems - w- the Skyway are the stupid move by the polticians [was that Richard M?] to sell the Skyway, and the usurious, ann'ly increasing tolls.
On the use of lash and other exaggerated headline verbiage, This Maher piece from last month is pretty funny…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lap1YE0uAC8
I would like to outlaw the word "white". It is offensive to many in the formerly minority community. It implies racism and privilege. It implies superiority in personal attributes. It assumes superiority over other types of people. It implies goodness, purity, and joy- attributes not available to people not described that way. Therefore based on the discussion of terms offensive to certain cultural groups, I must press for stopping usage of the term "white".
I had a black drill sergeant tell me he was going to be over me like white on rice. And well…he did press me hard. He presented things as good or bad, right or wrong, black or white.
He did refer to me as white boy or college boy. Should we drop college as an acceptable word as well?
And does this mean I have to turn in my white noise machine too?
I'm pushing back on the woke police attempting to outlaw the term thug out of racial sensitivities.
If someone commits a robbery with violence, that is by definition a thuggish act. If someone carjacks by putting a gun in someone's face, that is a thuggish act. The perpetrators of these crimes are indeed thugs.
The problem is that these crimes are disproportionately committed by black offenders. So in the woke mind, that results in too many blacks being called thugs and ergo, it must be a racist term.
We often hear people pontificate that this nation needs to have a very uncomfortable discussion about race. Well here's an unavoidable part of that discussion, that our country is suffering a violent predominantly black crime wave.
The FBI provides an annual Uniform Crime Report on criminal activity in the US, and they capture data by offender's ethnicity. For the past several years, blacks have represented over 50% of offenders on all homicides and all robberies nationally. Think about that - HALF of all homicides and robberies in the country. Blacks represent approximately 13% of our population, which means they are disportunately committing these crimes by about 400%.
As a direct consequence to these criminal acts, blacks are also way overrepresented in the criminal justice system and in our prisons. Which then resulted in far left prosecutors in major cities like Kim Foxx embarking on a crusade to decrease penalties and incarceration for blacks irrespective of the offenses they have committed in the name of social justice, despite the fact that blacks are also heavily disproportionately the victims of violent crime. Very misguided and simply a prescription for more violence from repeat offenders who are not removed from the streets as they should have been.
Of course, discussion of this must include an examination of root causes which likely include racism and poverty. But that does not change the facts on the ground that our society is suffering from a predominantly black violent crime wave today.
So to circle back where this started, anyone who commits violent robberies and carjackings and other violent crimes is indeed a thug. And I will continue to refer to them as thugs regardless of their color.
Of course you are going to continue to use the word thug, David. Because why be sensitive and stop using a term that hurts and offends other people? And while you’re at it, why not suggest, as you did, that “our country is suffering a violent predominantly black crime wave.” I mean, so what that most violent crimes nationally are committed by white people according to the very Uniform Crime Report you cited. You wouldn’t want to complain about a white crime wave. It’s so much more satisfying to be self-righteous about the violent black people, right?
Okay, I guess I have to post a sarcasm alert. I just find your comments to be so upsetting. This is not a QAnon or 4chan message board. Is white grievance appropriate here?
Hi Joanie - I'm sorry that a simple statement of facts upsets you. I guess reality can do that to people.
Where are you getting the information that whites commit a majority of violent crime in this country? The uniform crime reports reflects that blacks commit over 50% of homicides and robberies which are by definition violent crimes.
The fact is that blacks as a group are disproportionately committing crime to about four times their share of the population. Whites in stark contrast are committing crimes to a much lower representation to their share of the population. So it is objectively false to state there is a white violent crime wave occurring, but simply a statement of fact that there is indeed a black violent crime wave occurring in our country.
If people are unwilling to acknowledge facts, that makes any type of reasoned discussion on the subject impossible, let alone attempting to find solutions to the problem. And that simply leaves us locked in to the problem.
Facts don’t bother me. It’s the racist spin you put on the facts that bothers me. I get the information that whites commit a majority of the violent crime in this country from the same source you cited (see below) which states that in 2022 whites committed 389,295 violent crimes, and blacks committed 378,448 violent crimes. When whites commit a majority of the violent crimes, which they do, only a racist would say that we have a black violent crime wave occurring in our country. In my view, it’s obvious that you, like so many people that are going to vote for Trump, have a white grievance chip on your shoulder, and that you dig portraying black people as less reasonable, decent, and worthy than white people. It bothers me.
https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend
Joanie - You truly diminish yourself and your credibility when you resort to name calling and bring Trump into a conversation that is not material to him. The fact is that blacks are committing violent crime about four times more than their representation in society, and whites are committing violent crime many times less than their representation in society. So yes, a black violent crime wave is what it is with the high rate of violent crime per capita in the black community. When people like you simply call facts racist and refuse to discuss them with reason, they will only perpetuate or get worse.
I’m comfortable with the statements I made. They do not diminish me.
Generally agree David that some conversations are being avoided, and you can't heal a community without honest conversation. It's also always interesting to see disproportionate data used only when it helps your cause. More whites are killed by police, but blacks are disproportionately killed. Then the same people ignore disproportions with crime, welfare, etc.
However, to push back a bit on your push back, part of the evolution of the word "thug" happened when some started using it for any black kid, not just criminals:
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2014/02/13/thug-is-an-easily-translated-code-word/5464895/
From the essay: "They decide you’re a thug from the moment you’re born, so they lock you up in disproportionate numbers. Then they point to the fact that you are locked up in disproportionate numbers to prove that you’re a thug."
While that statement is way too simplistic, it does include unfortunate truths. Once a perception is made, it's hard to shake. The recent evolution of "thug" might be comparable to "spade" in the 1920's, and "spook" during WWII. Both words are still used regularly as non-slurs today, but because someone decided to use them as racial slurs, new connotations were born.
Hi Ted - Thanks for your reply and all good thoughts. This raises the question - is my use of the term thug inappropriate even when it addresses specific individuals who commit thuggish acts, because others racially misuse the term? There can be a fair debate on that, but my fear is that if we ban every word that anyone uses inappropriately, we are going to have a very large vocabulary of forbidden words.
Agree, it does boil down to that question, but IMO not worth it for now. Words evolve, some that are on the hot seat now may not be in a few years. In the meantime, we can only hope that people understand this is near impossible to keep up with, especially for those of a certain age, and they also realize word policing isn't real activism, and ultimately doesn't solve much.