You're overgeneralizing from one example. His New York Times columns tend to be quite moderate in nature and he's more than willing to question so-called "woke" dogma.Ah, Columbia University and the NYT give me a good idea of what color lens that linguist sees word meanings through.
You're deflecting. The American context refers specifically to African-Americans, and is tied up with the country's fraught relationship with its Black citizens. Kansas City has had its own difficult history with respect to relations with its Black population.I'm a polyglot, and do see how some people want to attach colors to words. So I asked my daughter, who knows even more languages than I do (and who is as Hispanic as Luis Muñóz Marín) what her perception of "thug" was and her response was "gangster, gang member". No race attached and she considers it a non-race specific term.
If you don't understand the significance of the word "Troost" then you have no idea what the situation has been like there.
It appears that the outbreak of violence at Union Station was very unorganized crime. In any event, Parson represents the entire state, not just old white Farm Bureau members from rural southwest Missouri like him. He should mind his words. (But he is known for gaffes.)Given his age, the term "thug" is the most common and usual term applied by folks that age to gang members and "enforcers" from organized crime. That is just like slightly older people than Parson still think that "gay" means "happy and fun loving".
Words - and context - do matter.
Maybe we are all the same, but our experiences are not all the same.As the only "white" guy in my living family, I think you are spending way too much time trying to classify and subdivide humanity into groups... rather than realizing that we are all really the same.