So if one person claims offense at any word then the rest of civilization is supposed to accommodate them and refrain from using it? If a nation of 360 million people takes this view to its logical conclusion, we would soon become a nation of mimes. “Thug” is not a racially charged term, despite what Mr. McWhorter says, and I’ve yet to m…
So if one person claims offense at any word then the rest of civilization is supposed to accommodate them and refrain from using it? If a nation of 360 million people takes this view to its logical conclusion, we would soon become a nation of mimes. “Thug” is not a racially charged term, despite what Mr. McWhorter says, and I’ve yet to meet a black person who finds it objectionable.
Also, as dutiful viewers of Lebowski know, Walter’s enlightenment was even earlier; 1991 to be exact.
Steven K, it’s absurd to suggest that only one person in our nation is claiming offense at the use of the word “thug” to describe black people. You say that you haven’t met any black people who find the use of the term thug to describe black people as offensive or hurtful, and suggest that, for that reason, the term is acceptable. So we are to come to a consensus on acceptable English usage based on “people Steven K has met”; that should be the criterion? I don’t think so. As to The Big Lebowski, the movie came out in 1998.
More to the point, I think that the reason that there are so few people (black or otherwise) that find “thug” to be offensive is because, as I have already pointed out several times this morning, most people are aware that it is not a racially charged term. At all. Anyone is free to pretend otherwise, but that doesn’t mean that the etymologically informed among us must acquiesce to their misconceptions. You can find a few people here and there that find the word “actress” to be offensive (or claim that they do). Most people, however, not only don’t, they look at the plastering of “actor” in front of the name of a female thespian to be a little weird and very contrived. That’s why “actress” isn’t going anywhere, and will continue to be recognized as the perfectly good word that it is.
The Big Lebowski came out in ‘98, but it is set in “the early 90s, right around the time of our conflict with Saddam and the Aye-rackies” as the Stranger intones in the opening narration.
“Thug” as applied to black people, has become a racially charged term, as Eric Zorn pointed out. And if you, like the rest of the people here decrying the “word police,” continue to use it, you will be judged accordingly. I think that was Eric’s point.
And I’m well aware that The Big Lebowski was set in the early 1990s. Otherwise why would the Dude have told the big Lebowski “this aggression will not stand” in relation to his peed-upon rug!
And the person working at the counter in the bowling alley being named Saddam in one of the dream sequences. I get it. I said late 1990s ‘cause that’s when the film was released.
Are we waiting for just any "black person"? What credential would you require to be sure they "represented" enough to satisfy you because would just one person really be enough for you? What if two responded but only one was against the use of the word "thug"? How many people must you hear from to accept that maybe you could just drop this word from use, and expand your vocabulary a little? How hard is that?
Again, you can say "actress" or "stewardess" or "waitress" all you want. You can also dust off "comedienne" or "aviatrix" or "editrix" if you're so inclined. I am of the opinion that gendered job titles should go, and yet I agree that "actress" may be the last of those to hang on due to the Oscars.
We all decide when to change our word choices and reasons vary. The stakes are very different for somone who has a job writng or speaking publicly.
There is always a phase when some people try to get consensus on word choices when it is not clear if what they are pushing for will take. I remember when some people wanted to change phrases used to refer to disabilities and the class od such people as a whole. The term "differently abled" was floated. It never became the norm probably because it was patronizing. Anyone who jumped on that bandwagon now looks ridiculous.
Regarding thug I would think that context matters. Of course there will people who get outraged at anything. A person could be suspended from his job and pilloried for writing n----- in an appropriate context. That does not mean I would not write that.
I speculate that "actress" indeed is different from the other job titles you list, but intrinsically so, not just due to the Oscars.
When a job entails serving refreshments, telling jokes, flying an airplane, or editing written material, persons of any or no gender pretty much can fulfill those functions equally, so the job title may as well be gender-neutral.
But, if you need to cast someone to play significantly-gendered characters -- say, Scarlett O'Hara or Samson -- it is perverse to regard those as equal-opportunity acting roles. You want an actress and actor respectively, unless challenging gender specificity is meant to be the point of your production, which is not usually the case.
I don't doubt it; Ms. Jackson was talented enough to embody anyone from Tinkerbell to Jabba the Hutt. Glenn Close successfully mixed up gender boundaries in "Albert Nobbs," and Edna Turnblad ("Hairspray") may be my favorite John Travolta role.
None of those very intentionally norm-defying cross-castings negate what I contended: that acting humans are not created perfectly interchangeable.. Ninety-eight-year-old Dick Van Dyke COULD play Tiny Tim or Little Orphan Annie, but only to make the point that he is versatile and skilled. But the roles are more satisfyingly played by children.
Each acting person has qualities -- gender, size, age, temperament, skills, appearance -- that well match some roles and DO NOT match others. An acting person's best work is most likely to happen when that person needn't bend that person's intrinsic self excessively far out of its current expression to match the character's self.
If you can find any evidence that the world writ large considers “thug” to be synonymous with “nigger” I would love to see it. Even better would be some lexicographical evidence of this non-existent linguistic equivocation (actually I’ll save you the trouble and break it to you straight: there is none). Better still would be if people like you would quit imagining that certain words mean things that they do not, and just consult Merriam-Webster to clear up your considerable confusion. I hate to burst your amateur code beaker’s bubble, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
So if one person claims offense at any word then the rest of civilization is supposed to accommodate them and refrain from using it? If a nation of 360 million people takes this view to its logical conclusion, we would soon become a nation of mimes. “Thug” is not a racially charged term, despite what Mr. McWhorter says, and I’ve yet to meet a black person who finds it objectionable.
Also, as dutiful viewers of Lebowski know, Walter’s enlightenment was even earlier; 1991 to be exact.
Steven K, it’s absurd to suggest that only one person in our nation is claiming offense at the use of the word “thug” to describe black people. You say that you haven’t met any black people who find the use of the term thug to describe black people as offensive or hurtful, and suggest that, for that reason, the term is acceptable. So we are to come to a consensus on acceptable English usage based on “people Steven K has met”; that should be the criterion? I don’t think so. As to The Big Lebowski, the movie came out in 1998.
More to the point, I think that the reason that there are so few people (black or otherwise) that find “thug” to be offensive is because, as I have already pointed out several times this morning, most people are aware that it is not a racially charged term. At all. Anyone is free to pretend otherwise, but that doesn’t mean that the etymologically informed among us must acquiesce to their misconceptions. You can find a few people here and there that find the word “actress” to be offensive (or claim that they do). Most people, however, not only don’t, they look at the plastering of “actor” in front of the name of a female thespian to be a little weird and very contrived. That’s why “actress” isn’t going anywhere, and will continue to be recognized as the perfectly good word that it is.
The Big Lebowski came out in ‘98, but it is set in “the early 90s, right around the time of our conflict with Saddam and the Aye-rackies” as the Stranger intones in the opening narration.
“Thug” as applied to black people, has become a racially charged term, as Eric Zorn pointed out. And if you, like the rest of the people here decrying the “word police,” continue to use it, you will be judged accordingly. I think that was Eric’s point.
And I’m well aware that The Big Lebowski was set in the early 1990s. Otherwise why would the Dude have told the big Lebowski “this aggression will not stand” in relation to his peed-upon rug!
And dated the check that he wrote to pay for his quart of half and half September 11th, 1991.
And the person working at the counter in the bowling alley being named Saddam in one of the dream sequences. I get it. I said late 1990s ‘cause that’s when the film was released.
So Eric the white guy is pointing out this is a racially charged term.
Why don’t we wait for a black person (someone in the aggrieved class) to make his/ her opinions known.
Why does Eric feel he must “defend” them, a bit patronizing I think.
Or is he an expert on black matters and can speak on behalf of black people as to how thug should be used.
C’mon Peter. Don’t be obtuse.
Come on Joanie, answer the issues, Name calling does not become you.
Back in 6th grade I would have replied “no you are obtuse.”
But I grew up and stopped replying in that manner.
I apologize for telling you not to be obtuse.
Joanie, apology immediately accepted. I should also be apologetic to you for some of my sharp replies.
I respect your views and opinions and thus find you a worthy opponent when we disagree.
But I now declare peace and will think over our back and forth.
I expect I will learn a few things.
I’m sure I will learn some things as well in thinking about our exchange.
Are we waiting for just any "black person"? What credential would you require to be sure they "represented" enough to satisfy you because would just one person really be enough for you? What if two responded but only one was against the use of the word "thug"? How many people must you hear from to accept that maybe you could just drop this word from use, and expand your vocabulary a little? How hard is that?
Maybe it would be good to hear what they have to say. You seem to think the word needs to be dropped. What is your basis?
Again, you can say "actress" or "stewardess" or "waitress" all you want. You can also dust off "comedienne" or "aviatrix" or "editrix" if you're so inclined. I am of the opinion that gendered job titles should go, and yet I agree that "actress" may be the last of those to hang on due to the Oscars.
We all decide when to change our word choices and reasons vary. The stakes are very different for somone who has a job writng or speaking publicly.
There is always a phase when some people try to get consensus on word choices when it is not clear if what they are pushing for will take. I remember when some people wanted to change phrases used to refer to disabilities and the class od such people as a whole. The term "differently abled" was floated. It never became the norm probably because it was patronizing. Anyone who jumped on that bandwagon now looks ridiculous.
Regarding thug I would think that context matters. Of course there will people who get outraged at anything. A person could be suspended from his job and pilloried for writing n----- in an appropriate context. That does not mean I would not write that.
I speculate that "actress" indeed is different from the other job titles you list, but intrinsically so, not just due to the Oscars.
When a job entails serving refreshments, telling jokes, flying an airplane, or editing written material, persons of any or no gender pretty much can fulfill those functions equally, so the job title may as well be gender-neutral.
But, if you need to cast someone to play significantly-gendered characters -- say, Scarlett O'Hara or Samson -- it is perverse to regard those as equal-opportunity acting roles. You want an actress and actor respectively, unless challenging gender specificity is meant to be the point of your production, which is not usually the case.
Glenda Jackson played a pretty good King Lear.
I don't doubt it; Ms. Jackson was talented enough to embody anyone from Tinkerbell to Jabba the Hutt. Glenn Close successfully mixed up gender boundaries in "Albert Nobbs," and Edna Turnblad ("Hairspray") may be my favorite John Travolta role.
None of those very intentionally norm-defying cross-castings negate what I contended: that acting humans are not created perfectly interchangeable.. Ninety-eight-year-old Dick Van Dyke COULD play Tiny Tim or Little Orphan Annie, but only to make the point that he is versatile and skilled. But the roles are more satisfyingly played by children.
Each acting person has qualities -- gender, size, age, temperament, skills, appearance -- that well match some roles and DO NOT match others. An acting person's best work is most likely to happen when that person needn't bend that person's intrinsic self excessively far out of its current expression to match the character's self.
So "few people" are offended and "most people" are aware ... perhaps this reflects your social circle, but not necessarily the larger world?
If you can find any evidence that the world writ large considers “thug” to be synonymous with “nigger” I would love to see it. Even better would be some lexicographical evidence of this non-existent linguistic equivocation (actually I’ll save you the trouble and break it to you straight: there is none). Better still would be if people like you would quit imagining that certain words mean things that they do not, and just consult Merriam-Webster to clear up your considerable confusion. I hate to burst your amateur code beaker’s bubble, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.