It's a derogatory term for sociopathic lawless violent thugs whom also happen to be black. And honestly I don't have a problem with offending that particular group of people.
??? Is there really a need for racial subgroups in "sociopathic lawless violent thugs"?
If one has terms for people based in part on their skin color then to some extent one smears people with similar skin color, even if that is manifestly not one's intention, by making that skin color significant enough to be a factor that divides people. That should be enough to stop us from using skin color as a classification. If you're issuing an APB, by all means include skin color. If you're discussing particular drugs or crimes common to racially or ethnically defined gangs, fine. Otherwise, why use race as a defining factor? If we're condemning people for condemnable behavior, can't we just lump them all together and get it over with?
Yeah Breitbart probably isn't the example you want to use here. He received as much respect as he gave others when they died. Consider it paying homage.
LOL I don't think you really thought that one through, buddy. Whatever Breitbart did, surely it pales in comparison to robbing people at gunpoint.
There's a difference between being openly gleeful about a death as one poster in this thread is.
And saying I didn't like what the guy stood for... condolences to his family and friends though.
The above a bit different than "good heart attack... no great heart attack..." to paraphrase one particular odious post in this thread.
As far as I recall most of the posts in this thread call the shooting justified but call into question the celebratory attitude that at least one poster has demonstrated.
Furthermore I haven't seen. "Condolences to the mugger's family and friends." in many, if any at all, posts in this thread.
Whereas there are quite a few expressions of condolences to family an friends in the other thread.
In other words, people are saying the mugger deserved to die because he put himself in that situation and haven't really expressed any thoughts about people in his life, while Mr. Breitbart's family an friends received several condolences.
That's the nuance. In the first few pages of the first thread you mention I didn't see any post as celebratory as the thread starter for this subject.
....
That's a fair point. It would not occur to me to express condolences to family members of someone killed in self defense while committing armed robbery. Nor will I now, even though this young man probably (hopefully) had people who honestly loved him. Had he lived, he might have one day been a better person, but he died intentionally committing a violent crime. I think one forfeits that inherent good will when one chooses to be a violent criminal.
Nonetheless, I certainly agree that his death is nothing to celebrate. One can agree that a tumor needed to be cut out without celebrating the death of the tumor. And it's always worth remembering that unlike tumors, humans sometimes change to benign or even helpful. Many a former thug ends his days preaching and trying to keep kids out of the violence and crime he embraced in his younger days. Others simply give it up and turn their lives around to become normal, productive people.
Facebook
Twitter