Let's not quibble over use of 'thug'

Allow me this request.

How about stopping the quibbling and quarreling over the use of the term “thugs” to describe individuals who loot, pillage, burn and otherwise destroy other people’s property — not to mention injure or kill others — while rioting?

Dennis Prager, writing for RealClearPolitics.com, seems to think liberals have gotten thin-skinned about using the term. Liberals, according to Prager, seem to think it connotes someone’s race.

I consider myself a liberal thinker. I know other liberals, friends of mine. I’m unafraid to use the term. I mean nothing other than to describe the activity of the individual doing the misdeed. A thug is a thug. Period.


It doesn’t. Honest. The term covers many aspects of misbehavior. If you mug someone on the street, you’re a thug. If you like to fight others just to prove your manhood, you’re a thug. When I was growing up, if you “TP’d” someone’s house with toilet paper, you were a thug; these days, such activity is considered a compliment if you’re a teenager.

This notion that the rioters who destroyed businesses in Baltimore and other communities of late were labeled “thugs” because of their race is ridiculous on its face.

A team wins the World Series or the Super Bowl or the NBA championship. Fans who live in the city of the winning team are so delirious they storm the streets, turn over cars, light them on fire. Last time I witnessed one of these events on TV, I noticed a lot of white folks among them. They’re thugs, too.

Thuggish behavior knows no racial boundary.


One thought on “Let's not quibble over use of 'thug'”

Comments are closed.