Free Markets, Free People

A thug is a thug and race has nothing to do with it

Apparently the left is now involved in an attempt at ginning up speech codes, redefining words and then trying to prohibit their use because … “racism”. The latest attempt is to equate “thugs” with “n*igger”. That’s right, if you call a rioter a “thug” it’s the same as using the “n-word”.
Here’s a pretty descent response:

In ascribing racial animus to “thug,” the left is actually asserting a moral and logical vertex between “thug” and “black.” The only people who seem to be fixated on a racial undertone are the liberals. I believe the textbooks call that “projection.” Hey Democrats: not all looters are black. And you’re the only ones who seem to think otherwise.

Precisely. And here’s the point (and difference between social activism (ala MLK) and thugs):

If you looted, stole, robbed, assaulted and/or set fire to something/someone in Baltimore, you’re a thug. Torching the neighborhood pharmacy doesn’t make you a revolutionary. Stealing Air Jordans from the local shoe store is not a cry of freedom. And throwing trash cans at passersby will not release you from the bonds of – whatever bonds you believe are holding you back.

A coordinated effort to resist the increasingly militarized storm troopers employed by the government to crush the life out of liberty is social activism. Throwing a brick at tourists who made a wrong turn on the way to Inner Harbor is not.

There’s no nobility in wanton destruction. And pretending otherwise diminishes the sacrifices made by those who were actually motivated by the greater good. Looters, thieves and violent savages not only deserve no respect, attempts to suggest otherwise elevate them beyond their station at the expense of those who manage to challenge the forces of tyranny without looting the Sports Mart. Acting as if Thuggy McThuggerston pinching Pringles from the Quik-E-Mart is “sticking it to the Man” makes a mockery of those who “stuck it to the Man” without knocking over a convenience store.

The fact that the majority of those doing these things were black doesn’t change the fact that their actions were those of thugs – exactly how the context of the word has always been understood, and what race the thugs were was completely irrelevant. Anyone who does the above is a thug.

What is most abhorrent about this debacle in Baltimore is listening to the “leadership” trying to explain this behavior away.

Baltimore City Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young (Democrat):

It is about the pain, the hurt and the suffering of these young people. There’s no excuse for them to loot, riot, and destroy our city. I made a comment out of frustration and anger when I called our children thugs. They’re not thugs. They’re just misdirected. We need to direct them on a different path by creating opportunities for them.

If they’re your “children” then you, sir, are an utter failure. They are not misdirected, they’re undirected. They’re under the influence of thugs. And they’re doing exactly what you’d expect a thug to do in such a situation. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s likely a duck. And these “children” are indeed thugs. What Mr. Young wants to do is downplay the seriousness of the rioting and looting, play it off as just the work of some “misdirected children” and absolve himself and others of responsibility. After all, kids will be kids and we need to understand their “hurt” and “suffering” as they loot drugs and burn out a CVS.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (Democrat):

“I wanted to say something that was on my heart … We don’t have thugs in Baltimore. Sometimes my little anger interpreter gets the best of me,” she said. “We have a lot of kids that are acting out, a lot of people in our community that are acting out.”

The infantilizing of rioters.  They’re just “kids” that are “acting out”.  No, Ms. Rawlings-Blake, they’re criminals who are engaged in criminal activities which by that very definition makes them thugs.  Looting beer from a store you’ve broken into isn’t “social activism”, it’s theft!  And thugs are thieves.

Unfortunately she goes on:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” she said.

There is NO right to “free speech” that involves the destruction of property or looting someone’s property.  Those, again, are criminal activities.  Those that engage in those sorts of criminal activities are and will always be identified as  … thugs. So she chose to indulge the thugs at the expense of the citizens of Baltimore.

It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy, space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.

What absolute SJW drivel that is. So her priority was to protect the thugs from “cars and other things that were going on” and to ensure those who wanted to burn cars and businesses as well as loot property had the “space to do that as well”.  Serve and protect the citizens of Baltimore?  Nope.  Serve and protect the thugs. And make excuses for them.

She needs a little dose of recall election quickly. She’s a disgrace.

But the bottom line?  No, “thugs” isn’t the same as the n-word unless the n-word now means “criminal”.  And no, I won’t stop calling thieves and the like thugs just because some idiot on the Baltimore City Council wants to equate it with the n-word.   He and his council are failures.  The mayor is a failure.  And all they are trying to do, unsuccessfully I might add, is divert attention under the auspices of “damage control”.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

18 Responses to A thug is a thug and race has nothing to do with it

  • We don’t have thugs in Baltimore.

    Yeh. You DO. Some of them are in the halls of power. According to yourself, some of them are cops.

    Some of them are organized criminals…of allllllll colors, most likely. But surely black and white.

    Some are union members.

    • I always remember the words of an old Black woman who said “You have your ‘n*iggers’ and we have ours”.

      • I seem to recall that that was a reference to a young Al Sharpton

      • Robert “KKK” Byrd (D, WVa) said that he knew many pallored n-people during a televised interview in the early 2000s.

  • Am I the only one who can’t see any difference between “You just can’t expect any better from those poorly-educated, disadvantaged youths.” and the colonial attitude of “You just can’t expect any better from those ignorant, uncultured wogs.”?

  • “when I called our children thugs. They’re not thugs”
    “We have a lot of kids that are acting out”
    “we tried to make sure that they were protected ”
    “a lot of people in our community that are acting out.”

    The irony of the democrat leaders adopting the attitude of slave masters, that is, blacks must be “protected” for their own good, and allowed to act out and treated as, and handled like, children….

    Oh, did I say it was ironic for the modern party of dependence to treat their constituents in many ways very like the past party of slavery?
    I didn’t mean that of course, it isn’t really ironic at all, it’s part of a long term plan.

  • So long as Democrats run urban areas, law abiding citizens and their business should steer a wide birth.

    • We should however just be prepared to pay the protection money to the government that will be used to encourage them to stay there.

  • It all comes down to: “OUR side is above the law, beyond the law, and astride the law. We are good, and ipso facto must NEVER be cast in an unflattering light. YOUR side, however, is racist and bigoted and unfair and callous and greedy; you wicked unfeeling people keep finding ways to avoid giving us the money we “neeeeed” in order to guide these victims-of-circumstance to their higher, better natures. It’s all YOUR fault — whatever the problem may be, anyone who dares criticize us and ours is the true perpetrator of Society’s Evils.”

    * * * *
    I’d like to spare a moment to respond to the malignant Crooks-and-Liars who have suggested that this sort of “civil unrest” will become “America’s ‘new normal’ ” —
    … except that in my current frame of mind, any reference to this nation’s balance-of-ethnicities (and how badly the minority might fare if the majority should finally decide that “these thugs need to be confronted with force-of-arms until they learn the error of their ways”) might reflect badly on our gentle proprietor and his blog’s reputation for balance and moderation …

  • Actually, the only minority group who has any standing to possibly be offended by the word “thug” are Indians;

    “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.”

    So what god do our thugs worship?

    All the other definitions I saw were “a violent person” of some sort.

  • “If, with the nation watching, three black women at three different levels can’t get justice and healing for this community, you tell me where we’re going to get it in our country,” she asked, referring to herself, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

    So. She’s a racist AND a sexist, because…Brandeis.

    • Healing? Not a chance. A wound doesn’t heal if you keep picking at it, and there is not a chance in hell that those three harpies, or the rest of the SJWs, are going to let it alone.