I think it's a fact that thug is a polyvalent word.  Yes, it has been used as a pejorative to insinuate criminality when black people in America (and elsewhere, UKers claiming to be above or at least not a party to all this) adopt a posture in defiance of or simply outside of white hegemonic expectations of black people's "place" in "polite" society.  Yes, that pejorative was reclaimed by some in the black community, and used in media and other cultural expressions to boast defiance against that hegemony.

The word thug has also been used to describe the brute force tools of authoritarian police states, or used to frame sanctioned use of force by the state as that of an authoritarian regime.  After the Waco, TX Branch Davidian Waco ATF fiasco, "jackbooted government thugs" was boilerplate in NRA fundraiser letters warning about "government coming after your guns" through the rest of the 90s (even after people like George HW Bush denounced and abandoned their memberships allowing the more insurrectionist minded militia, and radical 2a interpreters more sway over the organization ... to benefit the gun industry).  

Thug is a complicated word, ironic but also the ironic truth behind a lot of "simple" pejoratives.  No, DND Beyond can not change the language on its own,  Its license means it's contractually bound to maintain the text as published by Wizards.  So given that, this is not a direct action space.  That is, whatever your position in the argument on this thread, it's not going to immediately impact how DNDBeyond reproduces Wizards' texts.  Howeverr I think it's fine for this to be a space to draw attention to the issue and concerns.   Perhaps that may result in enough public pressure on or dialogue with Wizards to rethink its editorial decision and go with a more innocuous term (I like "Toughs," like, "you enter the alley and find yourself beset up all sides by Gnome Toughs wearing indicia affiliating them with the gem merchants protection racket, all armed with quarterstaffs) in future print runs, which may then be imported into DNDBeyond.  Wizards, may be receptive to the appeal.  Its attempt to reflect/include communities of color and acknowledging a broader range of gender identity has been mixed (Descent into Avernus having the Arch Duke of Baldur's Gate being a PoC at least per the art direction, I thought was neat and something I wouldn't have seen in a TSR module decades ago, having a "androgynous" human attending a massage room in a bathhouse ... ok, I see what you're doing there on the broad representation front but maybe a little unintentionally retrograde :\ ).

To dial it back to less heated area, I think some on this thread had or should have pointed to the "criminal" background in the PHB, where Enforcer, hired killer, etc. are all good and more specific options that could easily be used in place of "thug."  What we're getting at is why, say there is a background called "urchin" or "charlatan", both of which offer romantically problematic discussions of class issues, but note they use that terminology instead of "bum" "layabout" or "swindler."  Of course, I always though background should have been an adjective not a noun (or "second class" so to speak), so use things like "poor", "criminal", "martial" etc.  It's an easy edit, IMHO.

One meta-game comment to what's playing out on this thread, and other threads such as the one addressing dice proceeds donations to BLM.  I appreciate the voices here trying to engage in anti-racist peer education.  That said, there's a lot of guidance out in the world on how to most successfully do that, some specific to the internet.  The bulk of the approach frankly fall squarely into best practices when teaching anything, and I don't really see that being done here.  Teaching 101: respect don't dismiss where your audience comes from.  If someone's dropping Orwell into the conversation, belittling their understanding as "sparks note level" or similar levels of dismissive contempt doesn't really help win the argument outside of coming up with a facile way to see why the person you're engage with isn't receptive to your thinking.  Keep in mind that most expressions of white fragility (defensiveness against anti-racism) comes from a position of feeling threatened (triggered by aspects of their identity that they've been privileged to never have had to really take a hard look at ... and yeah, it's hard, having been there).  To be concise, if you really care about the work of anti-racism to the degree that you want the work to be successful, you have to start at a place of care for the person whom you're engaging.  And that's hard to do too, having been there on both sides of the equation.  If you don't take that care, what results is sadly typical internet trench warfare and the person who you were trying to bring around to your perspective before you abandoned that for insinuating idiocy is just going to grow more insular and may ultimately follow toxic paths to ensure that insularity.  No one wants that.        

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

No, DND Beyond can not change the language on its own,  Its license means it's contractually bound to maintain the text as published by Wizards.  So given that, this is not a direct action space.     

Correct, as I've noted in my repeated attempts to report this thread to the mods. On the other hand, the official WotC forum dies with 4e, so there's really not other semi-official place to express these concerns except for directly to individual devs on Twitter... which is awful.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

To dial it back to less heated area, I think some on this thread had or should have pointed to the "criminal" background in the PHB, where Enforcer, hired killer, etc. are all good and more specific options that could easily be used in place of "thug."  What we're getting at is why, say there is a background called "urchin" or "charlatan", both of which offer romantically problematic discussions of class issues, but note they use that terminology instead of "bum" "layabout" or "swindler."  Of course, I always though background should have been an adjective not a noun (or "second class" so to speak), so use things like "poor", "criminal", "martial" etc.  It's an easy edit, IMHO.

In total agreement. That final bit is also a nice bit about the Cypher System developed by Monte Cook games including WotC ex-pat Bruce Cordell (a creative hero of mine). Characters for them are formed by a combination of a descriptor (adjective), a type (noun), and a focus (verb, more or less). On their website they list examples:

Cypher System characters are built with a three-part sentence. You might be a Rugged Warrior who Stands Like a Bastion. A Guarded Adept who Keeps a Magic Ally. Perhaps a Graceful Explorer who Moves Like the Wind. Or a Charming Speaker who Bears a Halo of Fire. Each part of your sentence says something about your character—but also provides some of your abilities, skills, and stats. They even offer guidance on your connections to other characters in your party, creating bonds that can be a foundation for an ongoing campaign, or facilitate great roleplaying in one-shot adventures.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Teaching 101: respect don't dismiss where your audience comes from.  If someone's dropping Orwell into the conversation, belittling their understanding as "sparks note level" or similar levels of dismissive contempt doesn't really help win the argument outside of coming up with a facile way to see why the person you're engage with isn't receptive to your thinking.  Keep in mind that most expressions of white fragility (defensiveness against anti-racism) comes from a position of feeling threatened (triggered by aspects of their identity that they've been privileged to never have had to really take a hard look at ... and yeah, it's hard, having been there).  To be concise, if you really care about the work of anti-racism to the degree that you want the work to be successful, you have to start at a place of care for the person whom you're engaging.  And that's hard to do too, having been there on both sides of the equation.  If you don't take that care, what results is sadly typical internet trench warfare and the person who you were trying to bring around to your perspective before you abandoned that for insinuating idiocy is just going to grow more insular and may ultimately follow toxic paths to ensure that insularity.  No one wants that.        

      

Your points are all well articulated and well taken. That being said, I care about anti-racism but:

• It is not my responsibility to teach anybody about history or literature.
• Argumentation must begin on a foundation of respect and a common understanding of fact. There's little hope in effective argumentation when it does not, such as when a participant begins a conversation with an ad hominem assault on those with whom they disagree.
• Although convincing people to see things my way is a nice outcome of an argument, in this case it is secondary to my goal of providing affirmative support for underprivileged people.