Weatherman who slandered police violence victims as ‘thugs’ says he had ‘no idea’ comment was racist
Source: Raw Story
Weatherman who slandered police violence victims as thugs says he had no idea comment was racist
Bethania Palma Markus
30 Jul 2016 at 22:49 ET
Dallas weatherman who resigned before he could be fired over a Facebook post calling the victims of police violence thugs said he didnt know the comment would be interpreted as racist, the Dallas Morning News reports.
Bob Goosmann, formerly chief meteorologist for KRLD, posted the comment on Wednesday and by Friday had resigned, stating that he would have rightly been fired had he not.
As many of you have probably noticed, Ive stayed away from politics on FB, Goosmann had written. The DNC parading the mothers of slain thugs around on their stage has me furious.
. . .
I used the word thugs in my post, but I thought a thug was just a violent person, Goosmann wrote in response to criticism. The definition of thug does not mention any race. I will say I talked with an African American acquaintance and he told me that he feels like when he hears the word, it is in reference to an African American individual. I had NO IDEA.
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/weatherman-who-slandered-police-violence-victims-as-thugs-says-he-had-no-idea-comment-was-racist/
[center] [center]
Dallas weatherman resigns after criticizing Democrats for 'parading mothers of slain thugs' at convention
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160729-dallas-weatherman-resigns-after-criticizing-democrats-for-parading-mothers-of-slain-thugs-at-convention.ece
LittleGirl
(8,288 posts)if you hear it enough on conservative talk radio, you tend to believe that it's actually okay to say it.
IOKIYAR
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)Is a thug.
Beartracks
(12,821 posts)That's probably not all that unusual for many people.
This guy's error actually lies more in his presumption that all people killed by cops must by definition be violent persons (e.g. thugs).
==================
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I understand the meaning of the word is changing over time, but many people do not mean it in a racial context.
Igel
(35,337 posts)Unfortunately, for many that one subgroup gets to define words--it's either that, or the rest of the population gets called "racist" and accused of offending feelings.
And it's hard to see outside of that group if you're in it. McWhorter, a linguist, did precisely this mistake. He's black and confidently said that any use of "thug" that wasn't racist was obsolete, that at best a few old people might still use it that way. Sadly, a large portion of American society and most English speakers in the rest of the world don't use it that way. It's a "dog whistle," and if somebody says "thug" about a black kid that does something violent and wrong the first assumption is that it applies first and foremost to the kid's blackness. If that same person uses the word "thug" for 99 white kids, it's just not noticed, it's not perceived, so "all the information" says it's racist, because what people say about kids who don't interest us isn't interesting.
It works the same for police charged. Recently one poster in a thread asked when police would finally be charged for shooting an African-American. Took 5 seconds to google and come up with two examples from the previous two weeks, and those were just the first two links from the search. He hadn't noticed it because it suited him not to notice police being reprimanded, and since he didn't know about such charges being filed he felt confident that none had been. It's a vicious circle.
Beartracks
(12,821 posts)Nicely explained.
===============
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts).
Sand Rat Expat
(290 posts)To me a thug is, as the dictionary defines it, a violent person, especially a criminal. The "thug" attitude crosses racial boundaries, as I've had the misfortune to encounter thugs of all ethnic backgrounds. When I call someone a thug, I'm describing an attitude and a set of behaviors, not the person in question's melanin content.
Midnight Writer
(21,786 posts)Or a man picking up a toy rifle in a Walmart, or a woman pulled over for not signaling a lane change, or a citizen reaching for an ID as the cop requested, or a man picked up for looking a cop in the eye who arrives dead at the station house.
I fully understand that there are real genuine thugs in our world that can only be stopped by violence. I understand that our cops deal everyday with people who would do them harm if they could. I understand that police and citizens have a right to defend themselves and others against harm. I even understand that in a nation of 315 million people, mistakes will be made.
What I don't understand is millions of my fellow Americans insisting that it is alright if police kill unarmed non threatening folk because, well, they may have a criminal record, or they look dangerous, or they are not obeying commands quickly enough, or they are in a high crime area.
Fer Chrissakes! Jaywalking? Selling lose cigarettes? Busted tail light? Looking "out of place". These things deserve a response but are far short of death penalty offenses.
Judi Lynn
(160,598 posts)keylargo
(42 posts)I also wish the people defending the police violence could also read thsi! Excellant post!
raven mad
(4,940 posts)I'd be the first to K&R.
FuzzyRabbit
(1,969 posts)is that he had no idea that anyone would be upset when he publicly used the same racist language that he uses every day at home.
Skittles
(153,174 posts)we all know what their private word is
Last year, President Obama referred to the rioters in Baltimore as "thugs," and he didn't resign.
Webster's says a thug is "a violent criminal"
Now if in your way of thinking you equate "a violent criminal" with a specific race of people, then you might want to ask yourself if you're the one who's racist.
Skittles
(153,174 posts)see, if the old cafeteria lunch lady calls me HONEY, that's not the same as, say, my male BOSS calling me HONEY.....but you know what? I HATE WASTING MY TIME EXPLAINING CONTEXT TO NITWITS. So *OVER AND OUT*.
Judi Lynn
(160,598 posts)In their lonely little rooms they fancy they've pulled a fast one on the libruls.
[center]
Deuce
(959 posts)Urchin
(248 posts)you might be suffering from confirmation bias?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Your rationalization is adorable! I'm guessing you think it's both relevant and clever, as well.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)Got my mouth washed out with soap in 1959 for saying it. Mom was great.
Judi Lynn
(160,598 posts)Skittles
(153,174 posts)yes indeed
Igel
(35,337 posts)Is "thug" racist or is it "not" racist?
It's "quite" another thing "to" talk about the appropriateness of "the" word's denotation being "applied" to the people that the "guy" is talking "about." I.e., were they thugs or not?
The first was at issue, and we may as well take his defense at face value. At some point blind suspicious and distrust only leads to more hate.
The second, wasn't really at issue and it's not one I can address because I (a) didn't watch the convention, (b) don't know who the women are, (c) disagree with some of the assertions upthread.
lib87
(535 posts)Not even a 'my Black friend'? Well, he's not even trying that hard to be associated with us.
Not familiar with Black people or our social issues in the US but feels he can denigrate Black victims of murder as 'thugs'. Oh, okay unemployed weatherman.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)black employee as proof that he's not a bigot recently.
The most ridiculous one that I ever heard was the ex-girlfriend of a close friend who claimed that she couldn't possibly be racist because some of the workers at the day care center she took her child to were black.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)Great minds think alike................
surrealAmerican
(11,363 posts)... "violent people". This is no less racist than using the word "thugs".
The problem is more than your choice of words - it's what you are trying to convey with those words.
grubbs
(356 posts)Regardless. Maybe he knew and maybe he didn't. But it was still tone deaf as hell.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)dembotoz
(16,825 posts)you would be amazed at what comes out of their mouths
racist? yes
clueless? yes also
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I have a difficult time believing anyone at this point in time, is unaware of its connotations.
I don't however, have any problem at all believing that many people will *allege* they don't know... sometimes a feigned ignorance is a convenient thing to cower behind.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)The rest of the English-speaking world know better.
(e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32538487)