What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
So according to [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLwliPIN3vg) the word “Thug” should be treated as the word Nigger, I.E. an offensive term that only applies to black people.
I ask as to why you don’t see topics about race as often with other minorites/races?
Also, I don’t know about the details of the Jordan Davis case, but will it be similar to the Treyvon Martin case on the grounds of a Black Teenager killed by a White Man at gun-point “defending himself” in terms of how far/racially charged it will escalate?
> *Originally posted by **[DrOctaganapus2](/forums/9/topics/380818?page=1#posts-7759927):***
> So according to [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLwliPIN3vg) the word “Thug” should be treated as the word Nigger, I.E. an offensive term that only applies to black people.
Well I can safely say without any knowledge of what else the video says that I disagree with that.
> I ask as to why you don’t see topics about race as often with other minorites/races?
Well, it isn’t all that well known, but the U.S. does have a long, complicated, and rather colorful (pardon the pun) history of oppression and racism towards minorities, blacks in particular.
Thug is not “the new N-word.” It’s applied to all criminal “delinquent” males. I’ve heard it used to describe gang rapists, bullies, politicians, and more. You can draw as many similarities between those as you want, but race isn’t one of them.
> Didn’t bother watching the video, but… what?
It actually wasn’t bad, and the title misrepresents what was said. The person was saying how people substitute thug for the N-word because it’s socially acceptable to do so, and how he felt that black people being called thug was the same, and that he would consider it a racial slur towards him. He also talked about how when black people use the N-word, it’s not meant to be derogatory and they understand what it means to be called that. While I would argue that position a little, it’s really far more tame than what it’s being presented as.
I suggest anyone who cares watch it. The clip is only 2:30.
Hmmm….no, I disagree with that logic. While the N word is inappropriate and edgy, being overtly offended by thug is just P.C. gone wild, in my opinion. Thug describes a type of behavior and is not limited to skin color. I’d say carriers of the title thug tend to do things like wear pants sagging to their knees, commit crimes for the sake of having street-cred, stuff like that. I don’t know about the guy himself in real life, but Eminem (white guy) has a thug “persona” going on. This was illustrated well in his movie 8 Mile.
[Take your pick](https://www.google.com/#q=thug+the+new+n-word) of the varying viewpoints.
For me, this is all going to boil down to CONTEXT.
That is what the whole thing about a Black being able to say “nigger” is all about….context.
I give a crap about what the “new word of the day” for pejoratively describing someone is.
All we are doing here is squabbling over the symptom of the problem and doing damn little about the problem itself.
The only thing positive I see in this endeavor is that sanity is yet holding firm on the line of just how heinous racism is. Maybe the bigots will someday get the message…..preferably from St. Peter.
> *Originally posted by **[RollerCROWster](/forums/9/topics/380818?page=1#posts-7761228):***
> I agree, we should show racists how to be tolerant by being intolerant of their intoleranceAnd, we should show criminals how to be law-abiding citizens by not arresting them when they break the law. Hell, let’s do the right thing and just toss all the laws right out the window. LOL
> *Originally posted by **[urine420](/forums/9/topics/380818?page=1#posts-7764132):***
> You can’t get fired, or even criticized usually when you call a black man a thug. Far easier to communicate the idea that someone is a nigger and avoid the repercussions. dog whistleYour point brings me to ask: are we talking the idiotic concept that ANY Black man (person) could be called a “thug”, under this new-speak, and it tacitly be considered to be somewhat similar to/considered “nigger”?
Or, is “thug” being applied to Blacks who demonstrate behavior that is akin to actual [thuggish activity](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thuggish)
I’m indicating such things as gang members or criminals in general…Whites included.
And, if so, wouldn’t Latinos, Asian, & White Supremacy groups/criminals be included?
If even this rather obvious venue limited “thug” to Blacks, then I could see where the race-specific pejorative would be viewed as racism.
Well, let’s define the two words first.
“N” Word: noun(offensive) – a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person.
1 a violent person, esp. a criminal.[mid 19th cent.: extension of sense 2.]
2 (Thug) historical a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.
Now for the origin
Originated from the slave trade during the 17th century. First recorded use of the word was in 1619 by John Rolfe who is the first successful cultivator of tobacco in America. He is more popularly known as the husband of Pocahontas. He spelt it as “negars” which is the derivation of the Spanish word negro which meant black.
Surprisingly, the “N” word became offensive during the Racial Segregation rather than the believed Civil War. Popularity came about during the O.J. Simpson Murder Case in 1995. This popularity made it mainstream.
Originated from the former Indian cult, Thuggee. The Thuggee was an organized gang of professional assassins that would travel with strangers. They win the stranger’s trust and then by using a handkerchief strangle him. After killing him, they would rob the victim and bury his body.
During the British colonial rule of India, the British outlawed the Thuggee and set up a special force to target the Thuggee and eradicate them. This led to the term usage of Thug to refer to an individual member of the Thuggee cult. Later use of the term meant for criminals that are hired.
So with the two origins, its quite hard to see whether the term Thug should be banned because the term Thug can be used for any criminal that is hired. Thus, it is not related to skin-colour at all. However, the main reason why there is the debate over it is because of the racial stereotype that all African-Americans are criminals. This is the thing that must be changed not the word.
> *Originally posted by **[RollerCROWster](/forums/9/topics/380818?page=1#posts-7764714):***
> black people exist outside of America
Actually, it is more that blacks can originate from places other than Africa, that it is wrong. Not that it is not realised dark skins exist outside of America. The term itself assumes that if you have dark skin, Africa is your home, when in fact your people could have come from one of several different continents.
I dislike the term personally, because it implies the person’s ‘African’ heritage is more important than their American heritage, even though they might well be a third generation colonial themselves, having no living links whatsoever to the land they are associated with.
[Something interesting](http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/what-you-wont-hear-during-black-history-month/) that touches on thuggery and the knock-out game (seemingly?) being the domain of Blacks.
It is quite the read.
Here is a couple of commentaries on Mychal Massie’s rant.
So…..Black History Month…this all might be broad fodder for a brand new thread, but here goes—do you think it’s appropriate to hold Black History Month, and if so, would it be appropriate to hold White History Month? If so, why? If not, then I suspect the driving thrust behind Black History Month has to do with some form of reparations.
> *Originally posted by **[Twilight\_Ninja](/forums/9/topics/380818?page=1#posts-7766332):***
> So…..Black History Month…this all might be broad fodder for a brand new thread, but here goes—do you think it’s appropriate to hold Black History Month, and if so, would it be appropriate to hold White History Month? If so, why? If not, then I suspect the driving thrust behind Black History Month has to do with some form of reparations.
Did you just really try to say “but wheres white history month???”
i didnt know ur a white supremacist
> *Originally posted by **[Twilight\_Ninja](/forums/9/topics/380818?page=1#posts-7766332):***
> So…..Black History Month…this all might be broad fodder for a brand new thread, but here goes—do you think it’s appropriate to hold Black History Month, and if so, would it be appropriate to hold White History Month? If so, why? If not, then I suspect the driving thrust behind Black History Month has to do with some form of reparations.All good questions, Ninj.
I hope they can be delved into.
This thread is as good as any for it.
And, since it always seems to come up when discussing racial/Black issues….what about Dr. MLKing as a national holiday? Should he be thusly honored? Was his contribution all that significant?
Addendum: An afterthought: Since there is this concept that history of a war is written by the victor. I think Whites already have a significant amount of coverage of their history. I would assume something similar would exist as a condition for the reasoning behind Black History Month. Why a whole month? I guess it might take that long to cover the enormity of what the history of Black America is.
Sure, all the negativity of the slave era should be exposed to those who “haven’t a clue”.
But, since I’m more of a “positive” kind of guy, I think the school lessons, newspaper articles, etc. should focus on Blacks the likes of: George Washington Carver, Jackie Robinson, [Dr. Vivien Thomas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Thomas); just a very few of the hundreds of those Blacks who contributed mightily to the advancement of America, yet received litte-2-NO recognition of the difficulties endured in doing so….largely do to racial discrimination.
Interesting to me is how there is a parallel between how Gays are TODAY being treated and how Blacks where treated in the past (history). On that negativity aspect I mentioned, I don’t agree w/ Mychal Massie’s concept that exposure to school children (and adults) about the atrocities of racial discrimination are motivated by a desire to shame Whites for them.
I see it more as: Those who fail to remember the past are likely to repeat it.
And, repeat it we are. See the postings I’m making on the Gay Marriage thread.
> *Originally posted by **[karmakoolkid](/forums/9/topics/380818?page=1#posts-7766536):***
> And, since it always seems to come up when discussing racial/Black issues….what about Dr. MLKing as a national holiday? Should he be thusly honored? Was his contribution all that significant?
Oh, definitely. I don’t see any problem with an MLK holiday, and I think his contribution was huge. From what I read about MLK, he wasn’t racist in any way, either, just seeking equality (no preferential treatment of whites over blacks, or blacks over whites).
The MLK holiday isn’t a double standard, either, because there’s plenty of people of different races/stripes as well having holidays, such as (1) Washington’s Birthday (2) Columbus Day (3) [Harvey Milk Day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk_Day) (California)….etc. etc.
But sometimes I just wonder if events like Black History Month, Ebony’s Black Achievement Awards, and so forth are a bit too much, since they seem to have no counterpart.
A counterpart would be a bad idea as it would be even more devisive. One history for whites, another for blacks. Hello separate-but-equal. How nice to see you again.
If anything we need to slowly dismantle black history month, and incorporate it into a general ‘history of the people’ month. No point dismantling in whilst there are such vocal politically-motivated individuals trying to rewrite black history however. Over time, it will need to be less and less about one particular ethnicity, and more and more about how all ethnicities blended, with particular emphasis on when one ethnicity was singled out for less than equal treatment by others. Historically it’ll still be often the blacks, sometimes the natives who were so prosecuted, but it wasn’t always those of the minority that were prosecuted.
Even with MLK, some whites were locked up and beaten along with the blacks at his rallies, and whilst seemingly minor, it is worth noting such things; that the divide was not strictly by skin color. That you could not just look at a person and tell visually with complete accuracy whether they were a persecutor or a persecuted. Who a person is and what they believe in also weighs into the equation.
By focussing on such aspects, hopefully, over time we can lessen the need for a reminder of how we treated X ethnic group in the past, and increase the need for a simple reminder of how we treated our fellows, for a minor difference that was entirely beyond their control. Much more applicable to a far broader array of challlenges both in the past and our future, that way.
This topic reminds me of how when I was younger I asked my mom at the dentist’s office why someone had darker skin when it occurred to me not everyone had dark skin. She told me that was how they had been born and everyone looked different. That was the last I thought anything about skin color until 5th grade where the whole, “here’s what happened to black people in America – white kids, you should feel guilty,” lessons started.
Honestly, I feel that Vika is right. A month to remember injustice and struggles of those for equality is good. A month to focus on one particular ethnicity only imparts a sense of reparations. What has been done cannot be changed. If we’re ever to move beyond this perceived difference because there are different ethnicities, we need to stop treating people differently because of it. Hate thrives on attention and validation. We need to teach our children that we are far more alike than we are different, and not focus on the differences.
> *Originally posted by **[urine420](/forums/9/topics/380818?page=1#posts-7769064):***
> ignoring systemic injustice makes it go away
If you say so, CROW.
> Over time, it will need to be less and less about one particular ethnicity, and more and more about how all ethnicities blended, with particular emphasis on when one ethnicity was singled out for less than equal treatment by others.
That would make a lot more sense than the way it is now. For instance, look at the film awards/Academy Awards—they are open to all genders and ethnicities. Halle Berry, a black woman, [won best actress](http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/Halle-Berry-wins-Academy-Award-for-Monsters-Ball---Oscar-History-Video/8544896) in 2002. However, are the Ebony Awards open to all ethnicities or just one? So right now we have a system where both blacks and whites are participants in one, but only blacks are participants in the other. It’s not balanced.
> *Originally posted by **[Twilight\_Ninja](/forums/9/topics/380818?page=1#posts-7769106):***
> It’s not balanced.Is racism gone?
What do the Ebony Awards, Black beauty pageants, [beautillions](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrJeVMCsJEA), SUPER recognition that Obama is the first (half) Black president—much the same ado when Kennedy was the first Catholic elected, etc. do in regard to either helping or hindering racism?
If they aren’t “helping”, what would be the appropriate corrective measures?
How intrinsically connected are such “self-recognitions” by Blacks to those of what society as a whole is doing to/about this kind of racial discernment?
Are you saying that upon Halle Berry (a Black actress) winning an Oscar for best actress, the Holy Grail is now complete and the “need/reason” for the presumptive separation factor for leveling the playing field no longer exists and such “Black Only” venues can now be utterly ceased?
We probably should include the Latin Grammy Awards, the [ALMA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALMA_Award), the DAR and any other such events that celebrate accomplishments within a particular group demographic.
I ask these questions because this whole thing about Black-specific events, etc. always come up when the discussion turns to racism. I heard a lot of “reverse racism” thrown about because of this [discrimination](http://www.yourdictionary.com/discrimination) (example “a”) & discernment in regards to “noticing the pink elephant siting on the couch in the living room”.
Mostly, I’m saying that differences do exist. What is important isn’t that they shouldn’t exist; but rather, how can they peacefully coexist in order to maximize the inherent potential greatness afforded by multiplicity (don’t put all of your eggs in the same nest).