October 14, 2007

I smell an Ocean's Fourteen in the future. All the casino security must have been busy looking for Afflecks, lithe Asian gymnasts, etc. I would have thought, even with the size of the people involved, they would stop something like that quickly.

posted by yerfatma at 02:41 PM on October 14, 2007

Joey Porter is a thug douchebag who should be banned from the NFL for this. Commissioner Godell could very easily rule Porter and his band of merry assholes were deliberately trying to take out a fellow player to make it easier for Porter on the field. Not saying that's what was going on, but he could use that as an excuse to run his sorry ass out of Dodge. Too bad that cap Porter took in the ass a while back didn't hit him in the head.

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:07 PM on October 14, 2007

A tad harsh, Frazer. Jones wasn't even hospitalized and none of the many bystanders was hurt. After seeing the fight, I'm surprised that all Porter got from Commissioner Goodell was a $141,176 fine (three game checks). I wonder if he told the full truth about the fight to the league when they met on the matter last spring.

posted by rcade at 04:54 PM on October 14, 2007

I'm with you wfrazer on the banning. While it may be an odd comparison, I can't help but think of Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan. One tried to take the other out. Lifetime ban wasn't it? (I could wikipedia it, but can't be bothered.) When womens figure skating has harsher penalties than the NFL... That's a little odd. As for number 2 on your list... Funny stuff.:)

posted by Drood at 05:18 PM on October 14, 2007

"...fight that occurred between 2 guys..." You might want to do a recount.

posted by BlueCarp at 07:19 PM on October 14, 2007

Spontaneous and two guys, my ass. Joey Porter had that shit planned out. Which is kinda the point I was making. This wasn't just some random brawl. Pre-meditation seems to be going on, which opens up a whole other kettle of hamsters.

posted by Drood at 06:56 AM on October 15, 2007

How often does a spontaneous fight erupt where six or seven people jump one guy? From what little is visible on the security video, it doesn't look like a fight that began with two people and escalated into a group. Besides -- how dumb would Jones be to begin a fight with those odds? Goodell should bring Porter and Jones back in for another come-to-Jesus meeting, and if there's any element of premeditation in the incident, Porter ought to be suspended for a few games. As an aside, does anyone else think there's an undeniable racial component to deriding a bunch of black men as thugs? People can say that their actions fit the characterization, but I think it goes further and suggests that they're gangbangers or criminals. Neither of which has been established.

posted by rcade at 09:23 AM on October 15, 2007

Rcade, Are you channeling Bishop. I havent seen his posts here in a while. IT was thugish behavior. If tom brady and his boyz attacked someone, that would be thugish criminal behavior too. They are Thugs that happen to be black. Not thugs because they are black. Dont be that guy.

posted by Debo270 at 10:49 AM on October 15, 2007

Them's some large men tusslin'. Things always seem to look worse on video - I would suggest that it's clearly an assault, but I wouldn't hang Porter for attempted murder or anything.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:05 PM on October 15, 2007

2 guys who aren't even going to face each other this year? Also, y'might want to check week 17. So Odell Thurman of the Bengals gets a years suspension for his DUI, and now has been denied reinstatement by Goodell for a second season. No real reason given by Goodell's office or the Bengals. And Joey Porter suits up and plays every Sunday after commiting a felony on film. Curious...

posted by tahoemoj at 12:53 PM on October 15, 2007

When I said there's an undeniable racial component to describing black men as thugs, I did not mean that people who do this are racist. I meant that the term "thug," when applied to black men accused of wrongdoing, has an inflammatory racial connotation that makes it ill-advised to use in a discussion like this one. I think that's true regardless of the behavior of the people being described as thugs. Do a Google images search for the term "thug". Almost all of the results are pictures of black people. I could make the same argument about the term "monkey," but Howard Cosell cleared that one up for the sports world 30 years ago.

posted by rcade at 01:01 PM on October 15, 2007

I'm guessing the bar you bounced at was bringing in millions of dollars a year from passing itself off as a classy establishment. Actually, I would prefer the term hillbilly haven if you want to be politically correct. BUt it was a nice hillbilly haven

posted by Debo270 at 01:30 PM on October 15, 2007

Goodfella style

posted by Debo270 at 01:42 PM on October 15, 2007

Do a Google images search for the term "thug". Almost all of the results are pictures of black people. Maybe Google is racist.

posted by cjets at 02:34 PM on October 15, 2007

If one of them had a gun the fight could have lasted only a few seconds. If you're going to deal in "what ifs" you might as welll look at every scenario.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:06 PM on October 15, 2007

There probably wouldn't be a video.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:12 PM on October 15, 2007

I mean expected.I'm a horrible multi-tasker..

posted by chumpn80 at 08:03 PM on October 15, 2007

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:57 AM on October 16, 2007

I was calling hockey players thugs when 2Pac was at Baltimore School of the Arts learning how to act tough. Damn, he looks like Groucho.

posted by Hugh Janus at 09:31 AM on October 16, 2007

(high grade hood thugs) Now you have a bona fide "racial slur" rcade! (do people even read the thread before posting?) TBH is that really a good example to use, nobody is calling him that. He coined that term himself, and made millions off of doing just that.

posted by jojomfd1 at 11:52 AM on October 16, 2007

The original story was all about a boy from India who out-witted four tigers. Most credible literary experts will tell you that the original contained no racial overtones whatsoever. That was exactly my point, irun: it meant one thing then, and it means something different now. Something's origins don't necessarily have a thing to do with the images that it calls to mind today. The "but it's an old Indian story!" argument has been used to try and dismiss the racial overtones that have come to be associated with "Little BlackSambo" in the United States...it's all hand-waviing, you know? Etymology and literary history are all very interesting, but you have to deal with present-day realities.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:43 PM on October 16, 2007

Sorry outsmart tigers. I guess not bengal tigers!! Hioooooooo!!!! Thank you folks. I'll be here all week.

posted by Debo270 at 01:29 PM on October 16, 2007

Totally agree with you steel town. Why are Pittsburghers the only ones with a clue. YINZ guys just dont understand anat.

posted by Debo270 at 01:49 PM on October 16, 2007

Who the hell are you rcade and LBB to tell someone what they mean by their use of the word thug? Uhm, they're people having a discussion about opinion. Are you such a prescriptivist you don't believe the meaning of language never evolves over time?

posted by yerfatma at 01:51 PM on October 16, 2007

I think we're talking apples and oranges, people. Little Black Sambo has become a racially charged term and has been for some time. It is on a level with many other anti-black descriptors. OK, that's the apples. Now let's get back to THUG. The word Thug, in my experience, has been used to describe, a criminal of any type (though commonly used, as mentioned above, to describe those in the Mafia). But the term, more or less, has been used to any knee breaker type without regard to race. It's true that some in the rap/hip-hop community have appropriated the term Thug as their own, but why should that prevent me from using it, even if the Thug, in this case, is black. In fact, those in the rap/hip-hop community who use this term often act like thugs so that's even more reason so it strikes me as hypocritical that a small segment of blacks can call themselves thugs, act like thugs but a white person can't call a black person who acts like a thug, a thug. Another way to look at this: If whites have used consistently used the term (Little Black Sambo)to denigrate Blacks, it should be off-limits. If a racially neutral term like Thug has been appropriated by a small segment of Blacks to describe themselves, whites should not be criticized for using the term to describe a thug who happens to be Black. That's way too PC for me. And now back to your regular programming.

posted by cjets at 02:05 PM on October 16, 2007

Nicely done cjets. Is there a more appropriate term for someone who, along with three of his cronies (that's not a slur, is it?), blindsides a professional rival in a completely inappropriate setting? Is it really such a demonstration of bigotry to use that word? I'm sure douchebag applies, but due to the inherently violent nature of the crime, is stops short of being the best word possible. I think the action involved makes thug the perfect word, whether some people see it as racially charged or not.

posted by tahoemoj at 02:29 PM on October 16, 2007

Anyone can have any opinion you want just stop telling us what our opinion is. Where did that happen? The suggestion has been made "thug" is a racially-charged word and therefore sends discussions in non-productive directions which cause the conversation to veer from the point under discussion. Is that an unfair suggestion? If so, why?

posted by yerfatma at 02:49 PM on October 16, 2007

I think you should stop using it, Cjets, because it might cause the motivation for your comment to be misunderstood. It's your site, Rcade, but I think that's PC taken past limits that I feel comfortable with. They are thugs because of their actions, not their race. SportsFilter aims to be a more thoughtful community of sports enthusiasts than message boards and talk radio My aim was to post a thoughtful comment about why I think the term thug is not race based and OK to use even if describing a Black person. I think I did so. As an aside, does anyone else think there's an undeniable racial component to deriding a bunch of black men as thugs? People can say that their actions fit the characterization, but I think it goes further and suggests that they're gangbangers or criminals. Neither of which has been established. This was your original post regarding the subject at hand. You introduced the topic which derailed the thread, asked the question regarding the word and now seem to be dissatisfied with the answer that many of the posters are giving you. (i.e. whether or not the use of the word Thug is appropriate in this case). You state that the word thug suggests they are criminals. I would suggest that the video in which four men beat up on one man suggests that they are criminals, and their actions are deserving of the word thug. On Preview: What Hugh Janus said below.

posted by cjets at 03:58 PM on October 16, 2007

You introduced the topic which derailed the thread ... I asked the question 19 hours after the link was posted. I don't think that's an inappropriate point to raise the issue. But it wasn't a suggestion, yerfatma. It was an assertion, that there was an "undeniable racial component to deriding a bunch of black men as thugs." It was phrased as a question, Hugh -- whether other people agree with me that there's an "undeniable racial component" to the term. Making it sound like I called you a racist and am trying to shame and muzzle people is bogus. It's your site, Rcade ... Ugh. That has nothing to do with this. I'm just one member expressing an opinion about a word.

posted by rcade at 04:15 PM on October 16, 2007

I'm with rcade. The word thug does have a racial component. It is often used to describe black men who are not criminals or doing anything illegal. That's what makes it racially-charged, not how each individual uses it, but how often it is used in a completely different context than mafia-type behavior to describe black men. Continue to use that word to describe behavior when you think it is appropriate, but just be aware that it raises flags for people because it is so often used as a synonym for black man. You can't really complain that people are misinterpreting your meaning when you know that it is a likely interpretation due to your word choice.

posted by bperk at 04:35 PM on October 16, 2007

It's probably the latter. Sorry to be so bogus. 'Salright. I was just hoping I could tiptoe into this minefield without setting off any explosions.

posted by rcade at 04:47 PM on October 16, 2007

from now on, if I call someone a thug, I'm a racist. I don't think that and don't have any particular opinion on member use of the word beyond what I said, that it "sends discussions in non-productive directions which cause the conversation to veer from the point under discussion". I think it catches my ear mainly because what I hear when someone from my parents' generation says "thug" is "young black male who doesn't dress nicely and scares me."

posted by yerfatma at 04:53 PM on October 16, 2007

I think black men occassionally refer to themselves as thugs because they think it's cool in the fashion that "bad" means "good". Most white people I think refer to black men in situations such as thugs because they think it's a loaded insult. And they're upset because there is an awful lot of black men committing violent acts in the media. So they call them thugs as a way to pass judgment while skipping (or avoiding) any direct racism (though reading some of these comments - I can feel some people just begging for a reason to grab the big paintbrush). Seriously, the whole "Well, thug doesn't really relate to a black man at all by the strict definition"- are you folks living under rocks? C'mon - you know the popular reference. But the other side is that I feel that the people who immediately protest the inclusion of the word "thug" with "black men" protest a little too much. Me? I call everyone asshat. But don't let that confuse you - I'm as racist as the next guy.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:52 PM on October 16, 2007

To me, the issue isn't as much whether "thug," in reference to a group of black men beating someone up on a casino floor, can be, can't be, is, or isn't an outright or veiled slur (I think it can be); it's whether its use in any case is something to be corrected. I think not, but then, I try to make context and intent clear when I write, and am usually surprised when taken the wrong way. That, to me, is the crux of it: those (certainly few here) who use "thug" as a veiled slur are not the same as those who use it, as a specific term with an etymology and common usage, to describe human behavior. Treating them as if they were the same is wrong and unfair. As far as "thug" is concerned, though, 2Pac had nothing on the 86-87 Baltimore Skipjacks.

posted by Hugh Janus at 07:06 PM on October 16, 2007

That, to me, is the crux of it: those (certainly few here) who use "thug" as a veiled slur are not the same as those who use it, as a specific term with an etymology and common usage, to describe human behavior. Treating them as if they were the same is wrong and unfair. No, I don't think they ever realize that they are using it as a veiled term. Most people deny that they ever have any racist intentions, and would defend its usage with the same arguments used in this thread. I would bet that chumpn08 invoking Sharpton and Jena though the only possible relation to this topic is that it is related to black people doesn't think that he has racial prejudices. It only takes a few threads like this to reveal people's biases. You can't tell what is in people's heart, so you have to judge them based on what you can observe. I don't think the use of the word thug (or gangsta or words like that) makes anyone a racist. However, the failure to realize that many people using thug here would have used goon if those involved look differently is just ignoring realities. You can choose to use the word and ignore its racial undertones or you can use another term without the baggage.

posted by bperk at 08:19 AM on October 17, 2007

Deciding that they should change their language, because they might offend someone who's itching to judge them Whoa, Hugh -- who's reading into people's hearts now? Is making a judgment call about other people's motives okay, or isn't it? I gotta say, though, this is a tight spot to argue from, with all these people coming in and making baldly racist comments. It's galling to be lumped in with such ignorance, and it's difficult to make the words of the innocent heard over the clamor of the guilty. I wouldn't do any such lumping where you're concerned, if it makes you feel any better.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:03 PM on October 17, 2007

Deciding that they should change their language, because they might offend someone who's itching to judge them, rings with powerful echoes of the kind of judgment you accuse others of making: just like racism, it's a poor excuse for damning your fellows. I don't think people should change their language because of fear that they will be judged. I would much rather people say what they think because it paints a more accurate picture of what they are about. Judging people based on what they say, what they wear, or who they choose to hang out with are fair game because they are completely within an individual's control (race is not). I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not judging anyone based on one word. However, I have learned my lesson about trying to have discussions with people with which I have no common ground. After a few threads of complaints about this pc world we live in, railing against Sharpton, accusing someone of pulling the race card, or refusing to acknowledge that racism exists without white sheets, I know not to engage them in any discussion related to race.

posted by bperk at 04:44 PM on October 17, 2007

Thanks, IRFC. Seems to be all kind of inconsistency in Goodell's enforcement of the rules, as I alluded to oh so many posts ago. I know I sound like a homer when I bring up the Bengals, but they are the team I follow and, therefore, what I know the most about. This guy is on film assaulting someone. That the recipient of the beating happens to be a professional rival should be largely inconsequential. A felony was committed on film, and yet the aggressor still plays every week. I'm not saying the Bengals who got into trouble are choir boys by any means, but if Porter's offense goes unpunished, you'll really have a hard time convincing me it's fair that J. Joseph, our starting CB, sits a game for a first offense marijuana possesion charge that he has cleared up legally. When Marvin Lewis makes a claim of favoritism and/or discrimination, I don't feel he's completely off base.

posted by tahoemoj at 07:49 PM on October 17, 2007

How about "miscreant"? That's a seldom-used word (my dad used it all the time to describe me and my siblings, though).

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:29 AM on October 18, 2007

International soccer fans have a monopoly on hooligan. There's a goldmine of synonyms for thug on Thesaurus.Com. I can only imagine how much richer this discussion would have been if the assailants had been described as malefactors, ruffians or yard birds.

posted by rcade at 08:36 AM on October 18, 2007

You're mind readers, I'm a racist, and you know me better than me. You're overreacting. Questioning whether there's a racial connotation to a word does not mean that users of the word are all racists. You're not seeing all of the BS that gets posted here whenever a black athlete is accused of crimes, Frazer. Admins delete the worst of it. That colors the perception. But that's already been talked to death. It's more fun to see the text ads that this discussion has attracted. One is for GayThugDating.Com, which rams home the point that there might in fact quite possibly be a racial aspect to the term thug. (P.s. That site's a total ripoff. I chatted up a hot thug and he turned out to be a white blonde 19-year-old girl.)

posted by rcade at 10:19 AM on October 18, 2007

Of course, now I'm guilty of assuming that you grew up middle class. And in New England. Nope, upstate New York. How do you think I ended up as a Yankee fan? Answer: I started out as a Yankee fan. "Idiots" was another of dad's favorite epithets, particularly as used in the phrase, "I have sired a passel of idiots."

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:27 AM on October 18, 2007

Who the hell is anyone to tell me I'm overreacting? I'm pissed, that's my reaction. You're not seeing all of the BS that gets posted here whenever a black athlete is accused of crimes, Frazer. Admins delete the worst of it. That colors the perception. This entire thread centers around whether or not the use of the word "thug" is racist or not. I'm the person who used the word. If you pulled out other stuff that was terribly racist, guess what -- now there's no context for the discussion except that comments point back to the guy who used "thug" in the proper context. That definitely colours the perception -- but it's the perception of me that's coloured, not the word. Your own words, the first after I used the word "thug" to describe Porter: As an aside, does anyone else think there's an undeniable racial component to deriding a bunch of black men as thugs? If you want to make gay dating jokes about it now, it doesn't change the fact that a discussion started by you that had absolutely nothing to do with this thread now points back to me in a negative light. Thanks, it's greatly appreciated.

posted by wfrazerjr at 02:11 PM on October 18, 2007

The level of personal umbrage people are taking over my question is crazy. It's possible for these two statements to both be true: 1. When SportsFilter member X used the word "thug", he was not making a racial remark in the slightest. 2. The word "thug" has negative racial connotations about black criminality.

posted by rcade at 03:52 PM on October 18, 2007

I have no problem hearing the word "thug" from people I know, like Frazer. He wasn't expressing prejudice. I didn't ask the question with anyone I know here on SportsFilter in mind. But we get new people all the time, and topics like Michael Vick's legal trouble and this Porter-Jones incident attract them in great number -- always with blistering and ferociously judgmental comments about the athlete. And when I read the word "thug" from them, I think some of them are expressing a thought more ugly than "miscreant." (Some of them even prove it with other comments they make here before they get banned.) As I've said to Frazer in email, I genuinely apologize if I'm not seeing how this has been unfair to him. I extend the same apology to others who are taking it personally. I tried to ask the question as gingerly as I could. My ass is getting handed to me here, and there are a lot of times that's a strong indicator I'm wrong. But in this case, I think people who use the word "thug" should at least consider the possibility it means something different to the audience than it means to you.

posted by rcade at 05:11 PM on October 18, 2007

You're going to have to explain more fully how your posting that question after I used the word doesn't point directly to me. Perhaps if you had posted something along the line of your "two statements" post, I could understand it. Instead, you went with this: As an aside, does anyone else think there's an undeniable racial component to deriding a bunch of black men as thugs? People can say that their actions fit the characterization, but I think it goes further and suggests that they're gangbangers or criminals. Neither of which has been established. Also, I don't feel I have to justify the context of calling Porter names. This is a sports web site, and I suspect most people already know Porter has a long history of being a jerk, i.e. his on-field taunting, use of homosexual slurs, etc. That's the context, on top of what certainly will be considered criminal activity in the attack on Jones. I think I've been around here long enough for you and other people to know I don't have any problem with blunt talk. I'm speaking bluntly about Porter. If other people speak bluntly about Porter, great. If they want to call me a jerk or an asshole, fine. But your response -- which had nothing to do with the topic, and no one else had said a word about racial anything -- flat says you think using the word is racist. By extension, how does that not make me a racist? I take no personal umbrage at your posing the question. You just posed it in a position to make it a shot at me. Is that so hard to see? On preview: Hugh's reading it exactly as I am. I haven't read your email yet, Rogers, but I am winding down a bit at this point. I know you didn't mean it the way I'm reading it, but that doesn't mean the other bajillion people sliding through for the first time aren't reading it in exactly the same way I am. I'll answer you privately after I eat some of my wife's chicken parmesan. I'll feel more cuddly for sure.

posted by wfrazerjr at 05:36 PM on October 18, 2007