People who assume I'm some bad person because of my personal/religious beliefs.

[s_stabeler]

which means that they can't be "code words"- the entire point of "code words" are that they are words which make what someone is saying inherently racist- which is quite clearly not true. ( and yes, they COULD be sued in a racist way- my point is that merely calling someone a thug, for example is not actually racist in and of itself.)

[BlaqueKatt]

Try instead, for a clear example, someone saying "black people sure are lazy," and then, when challenged on that, saying "I'm not being racist, I'm just stating my opinion." As if what opinion they're stating has nothing to do with it.

It's because people are wrongly taught that opinions and beliefs are sacred and can never be scrutinized, questioned, or wrong. And stating anything as one or the other makes a +40 iron clad shield of defense from criticism.

It's not your opinion, you're just wrong.

Yeah, I never thought of thugs as a racial term. I always thought it could describe anyone low life violent punk.

It's almost as though language is fluid and meanings of words change over time


One can be a good person and hold bad, wrong, or bigoted beliefs/opinions, it's when you act on those beliefs or opinions causing harm to another that one becomes a bad person.

[Gravekeeper]

"Thug" has been a dog whistle for a while now and is prevalent enough to make me doubt anyone that uses the term these days. I've heard the "I'm using it the way its REALLY meant" argument in a number of different forms and it just really doesn't hold water. Not because you're intending use a racist dog whistle, but because the word has in essence been co-opted and corrupted. No amount of arguing is going to change how the word is heard by others.

Once its become socially recognized enough as a dog whistle, the whistlers will move on to a new term and ruin that one too. Its nothing new. You're much better off just leaving it alone instead of trying to argue over what you really meant all the time. Its a losing battle as long as the whistlers are still around. And on TV 24/7. -.-

[Estil]

Slight misunderstanding here. "Not mutually exclusive" does not mean they always align, nor is it negated by providing an example where they don't.

Try instead, for a clear example, someone saying "black people sure are lazy," and then, when challenged on that, saying "I'm not being racist, I'm just stating my opinion." As if what opinion they're stating has nothing to do with it.

If one is using a negative stereotype towards a group of people, and that group so happens to be of a certain race/skin color/ethnicity how is that NOT racism? I mean I'm among the first who will say that racism/racist label has been thrown around far too easily (weren't we all taught as kids what can happen when one "cries wolf" and then a wolf really does show up?) but c'mon, if "[racial/ethnic group] are [negative stereotype]" belief is not the textbook definition of being a racist I don't know what is.

[HYHYBT]

Exactly. That's the point, and "I'm not ___, I'm just giving my opinion" ALWAYS works that way when the opinion in question expresses a racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever viewpoint.

[TheHuckster]

Maybe it's the region of the US I'm from, but I've never observed "thug" to be used in a racial way at all. It might have morphed into a racist term in other regions, like the south and midwest, but part of the confusion about the term's use might be a dialect issue more than anything else. Basically anyone who is muscular and uses their strength to intimidate someone else is labeled a "thug." Could be white, black... heck, I heard someone refer to a bear as a thug.

[Estil]

I think YouTube commenters who use the f-word and such way too many times sound like some gangster thug (or more likely a wannabe pseudo one)...and of course in most cases you can't tell what race/nationally they are (unless they happen to have pics/vids themselves).

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I just want to tell a little story from when I was like... 6 or 7?

I live in New England. My family took a nice little trip down to Florida so the kids could enjoy theme parks and my parents could enjoy the beach. My mom let me go up to an ice cream vendor to order my own cone (because apparently I was so damn proud I could order my own food.)

"A soft swerve twist with chocolate jimmies please!" I asked.

And would you not believe the atomic bomb of abuse I was then subject to from the server. Calling me racist (which I didn't understand what that meant at the time) and a lot of other nasty words that I did understand.

Before my mom could say anything, a massive black gentleman (seriously, compared to my petite little body he was Hagrid and had James Earl Jones' voice, but add a lovely southern twang) stormed up to the counter and said, very angrily, "The girl just said she wanted sprinkles! Give the damn kid her ice cream!"

It was one of the other servers who got my ice cream as my parents ran up, but damn was I in some kind of traumatic shock because apparently (according to my parents) I just stood there staring at the spot the first server had been.

So, just using a term that might be "racist" does not a racist make. I still called them 'jimmies' though, it's really hard to break a habit - especially a verbal one.

[TheHuckster]

Jimmies was never used a derogatory term, although those who believe there are connect the term to Jim Crow, which doesn't fit its etymology.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Jimmies was never used a derogatory term, although those who believe there are connect the term to Jim Crow, which doesn't fit its etymology.

I suspect that the server wasn't all together that smart then, blowing up at me. Suppose they just wanted to bang on some drum then... also probably why that gentleman blew a gasket at her.

[Andara Bledin]

I suspect that the server wasn't all together that smart then, blowing up at me. Suppose they just wanted to bang on some drum then... also probably why that gentleman blew a gasket at her.

You were 6 or 7... the server was demonstrably not that smart to blow up at you. Your parents, perhaps, would have been the better target, but you were too young to know any better.

...

As to the OP: When one chooses to associate with swine, is it any wonder, then, that others might mistake them for a pig?

[KabeRinnaul]

Jimmies was never used a derogatory term, although those who believe there are connect the term to Jim Crow, which doesn't fit its etymology.

Reminds me of that uproar a few years ago when some politician used the term "tar baby", and people thought it was a racist term.

[LewisLegion]

If a religious person is against pre-marital sex, and they are critical of those who engage in the activity, does that mean that they "hate"

Well, consider this:

Why does a person of a particular religion- ANY religion- or belief system feel the need to be critical of someone who is NOT a member of said religion or belief system, for breaking the 'rules' of said religion or belief system?

I mean, if I'm a Christian and someone else is not, why should I criticize that person for not keeping with the tenets of a religion to which he doesn't belong? If I do criticize someone for not keeping up with the standards of MY religion, is that a loving or a hateful action?

Imagine you're on the other side of it. Say someone who is Jewish felt the need to criticize you for eating pork when it's against THEIR religion (but not yours)? Would you feel such a criticism would be respectful or loving? What if it happened repeatedly? Constantly?

And why does something being factually 'true' translate into not being a hateful or disrespectful thing to say? Sure, it may be factually true that Caitlyn Jenner will always be chromosomally male (provided she is now, there are far more intersex conditions than people thing). But why does this fact need to be stated? I know a lot of people who seem to think that just because something is factually true that means it can't be hateful or disrespectful to say.

I have a disability. I will always be a drain on the healthcare system (to varying degrees). It is factually true for someone to tell me 'you will always be a drain on the healthcare system' or 'you'll always be sick', but are those things not hateful, hurtful things to say?

It doesn't matter if the thing being said is factually true or not. Being 'true' is not the sole deciding factor in if something is loving or hateful, respectful and considerate or the opposite.

[LewisLegion]

But that wouldn't be me. That would be something called "biology".

Biology isn't discussing Caitlyn with it's mates on a message board, or god forbid to Caitlyn's face. Again, it might be factually TRUE, but saying it out loud and then defending yourself with 'well, it's true, it's biology' is a cop out, if you ask me. You're still saying something disrespectful and yes, probably hateful. Hiding behind the 'truth' of what was said doesn't change that.

No, holding certain beliefs does not make a person hateful. Feeling the need to criticize others for not adhering to those beliefs- especially if they don't share them- is hateful.

If you find you are making an assumption that a person is actually DOING something you disagree with simply because of that person's identity is also borderline hateful- at best, it's assumptive and a bit narcissistic.

That is, when it's said 'can't I disagree with your lifestyle without disagreeing with you?' upon hearing someone is gay- are you not making assumptions about their lifestyle that may not be true? How can you 'disagree' with a lifestyle you are unfamiliar with...that is, if this is a total stranger to you, how do you know anything about said person's lifestyle whatsoever? How do you know they're even sexually active or have ever been sexually active? All this is the general 'you' btw, not anyone in particular.

If you hear 'I'm gay' and your immediate response is 'I disagree with your lifestyle' that is ignorant at best and yes, hateful at worst. You are assuming you know their lifestyle at all, based solely on a single identifier. You are assuming they are engaged in an activity you disapprove of, without any proof they are actually doing so. You are assuming that your judgement on the matter is not only right, but needed and warranted. And then, if a person disagrees with YOUR opinion on the matter, it's suddenly unfair to YOU.

Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, it is part of a person's intrinsic identity. You cannot 'disagree' with a person's identity. Removing it from their identity and turning it into a separate entity that you feel you CAN pass judgement on and disagree with is disrespectful, judgmental, and potentially hateful.

[Gravekeeper]

Reminds me of that uproar a few years ago when some politician used the term "tar baby", and people thought it was a racist term.

More than a few have stepped into this one. Thing is, it IS a racist term, its just a pretty obscure one. I imagine whether or not you know its such depends on who you are and where you grew up. The problem is it *sounds* like a racist term to the modern ear. So if you're a white, affluent politician ( especially if you're from a party that everyone suspects is racist ), its probably best to avoid anything that sounds remotely like a racial slur.

Especially if you use the term to directly refer to a black president as one particular Republican congressmen did a few years back.

If you hear 'I'm gay' and your immediate response is 'I disagree with your lifestyle' that is ignorant at best and yes, hateful at worst.

Hearing someone use the term "lifestyle" in reference to someone else's sexual identity/orientation is something that seriously irks me. As it immediately demonstrates an underlying set of ignorant/incorrect and possibly hateful beliefs. The only upside is that it also immediately identifies a person with said beliefs so you can ignore them. >.>