When Judge Bennett’s post arrived and I read it, I was surprised. I wouldn’t use the word, purely as a matter of personal choice because I find it to be the single most repugnant word there is, but the judge used the word and who was I to impose my values on him? Judge Bennett was the furthest thing possible from racist, and certainly was entitled to make his own choice, particularly given the context of his use of the word.
It made me uncomfortable, but it wasn’t about me. The post was published “as is.”
As a criminal defense lawyer, the word pops up with regularity. Clients use it all the time. Not white supremacist clients, but black and Hispanic clients. They use it in conversation with me. They use it with each other. I do not use it in return.
In one extremely awkward case, a wiretap was replete with the word, so much so that it was impossible for the word to be redacted while maintaining the integrity of the eavesdropped conversations. The judge, prosecutor and I tried to do so, pored over the transcript word by word, each of us openly weirded out by what we were doing and how we were to discuss our efforts.
The euphemism, the “N-word,” doesn’t do much to change the word. The word is there, in our heads, in all its horror. The euphemism may allow us to dance around uttering the word, but then the word itself smacks us in the face, used with wild abandon even as we do everything possible to avoid using it, while being forced to see it and think it. My efforts seem almost childlike to avoid using it, yet I do go to pretty much any length necessary to not say, not write, that word.
Netflix can produce programs that show anything, say anything. It’s under no constraints as the FCC imposes on network television. But while they have the ability to do so, they have chosen to be circumspect about some things.
Jonathan Friedland, who has served as the streaming giant’s chief communications officer for the past six years, is out at the company after “insensitive” remarks he made to his team. Sources say that Friedland used the N-word in a meeting with other Netflix staffers, some of whom later reported the incident.
Friedland used the word in a meeting about words that are unacceptable and cannot be used. His use of the word became an “incident,” for which he was chastised. He then used the word again in a second meeting to address the error of his using the word the first time. That was an utterance too far.
In a lengthy internal memo, CEO Reed Hastings addressed letting go top communications executive Jonathan Friedland: “His descriptive use of the N-word on at least two occasions at work showed unacceptably low racial awareness and sensitivity.”
Friedland could have used the euphemism instead of the word itself. It’s not as if anyone would have misunderstood what he was talking about. But he used the word, the actual word, and that was more than the others in the meeting could tolerate. Whether Hastings was pushed beyond his tolerance or was playing public relations is unclear, but he fired Friedland and put an end to the controversy, making clear to the public that the utterance of the word was unacceptable at Netflix.
Maybe Friedland was great at his job, a good and decent person and wholly dedicated to racial equality. Maybe his utterance of the word was with the best of intentions, to make it absolutely, unequivocally clear to others that the word was unacceptable at Netflix. Maybe he expected those listening to him to be above the knee-jerk reaction to the mere utterance of the word and capable of grasping the context and purpose of its use. Maybe the first time he uttered it could be shrugged off, but not the second, after it was made clear that he should never, but never, say it again.
Then again, the word is used all the time, though not by guys with the last name Friedland. But the since sound of the word itself makes no head explode when uttered by others, it can’t just be its sound. And if not its sound, what about its context? But it’s neither sound nor context, good intentions or purpose. It’s the characteristic of the person who utters it.
There are a laundry list of derogatory words to describe racial and ethnic groups. I can say “kike” because I’m Jewish. Marc Randazza talks about himself as a “dago” all the time. Some people will write “fuck” while others write “f*ck,” as if an asterisk changes the word we see. There are words on the page and words in our mind’s eye. Do we think “N-word” or something else?
The significance of words we utter seems to change with abandon. In a recent oral argument, a judge informed an attorney that his use of the word “hysteria” was sexist, because the judge was told that by his law clerk. Apparently, this clerk was finely attuned to the cutting edge of offense such that a common word was now unspeakable. Was the lawyer a misogynist for using it? Would he be sexist if, after being warned of its sexist nature, he used it again? He was addressing the argument of his adversary, which relied on the word “hysteria,” but was he to call it the “H-word” from that point on or be tainted for his sexism?
The choice of words is a personal thing. I choose not to use words because of my own beliefs. Obviously, I believe my position to be sound or it wouldn’t be my position. But I don’t believe myself to be so universally correct that it’s my place to tell others to abide my choices or suffer the consequences of universal damnation. I do what I believe to be right. You do what you believe to be right. My rules for word choice are mine, and I have no business imposing them on anyone else.
I’m very reluctant to take a word off the table. We have too few available to express ourselves clearly, and a great many have already been rendered meaningless by morphing clear definitions into vagaries. My choices offend people regularly, as I fail to adhere to the cutting edge of lingual propriety, as defined by the high priestesses of wokeness. And so I’m called racist and sexist, as well as libtard and even “kike.”
What Friedland had in his head when he decided to utter the word that cannot be spoken by a white dude I cannot say. It’s extremely hard to imagine he rose so high at Netflix while being racist, but it’s possible. More likely, his use of the N-word was well intended, was meant in context to serve good purposes. It didn’t matter.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The land of free speech…
Sort-of…
I don’t say it, either. Nor do I feel any loss for not saying it.
But the particular power we give that word – and there are others, no need to list some here since the specifics don’t matter – raises particular problems. It gives the lie to the claim that words can’t harm. Of course they can.
But then what? It’s another slippery slope.
As you clean up the wiretaps, you inevitably strip meaning. And the next step (or the previous one) is either rewriting – or banning from the canon – Huckleberry Finn (and countless other works, of course).
And then on to microagressions.
Shit. As the good judge Kopf once told me in a different context, “This shit is hard.”
I added in some links to vids from Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and Chris Rock after you commented. I still won’t use the word. And like you, I feel no loss for not using it. But I emphasize that it’s because of my decision as to what words I choose to use, not to dictate to anyone else what words they can or should use. Each of us has agency to do as we deem appropriate, our business ends at our own tongue and fingertips. Who am I to tell Lenny Bruce he’s wrong?
Sit down, Scott. I have something to tell you and it’s going to make you sad. Lenny Bruce is dead.
Yabbut Kinky Friedman ain’t.
Besides, with all those quiet thoughtful monologues, we could stand some kickass music around here.
“The power we give that word… gives the lie to the claim that words can’t harm.”
Usually, when people talk about the harm that words do, they are referring to the harm inflicted on the listener. We ascribe to that particular word horrific, almost magical, powers to damage listeners; in so doing, we give the word true power to harm, not those who hear it, but rather those who utter it.
I wasn’t there, of course, but a priori I suspect the audience was mostly WASP SJW. One hallmark of such an august body is its infinite capacity to be offended on behalf of others who are not present, yet who, it is presumed, would be properly offended — mortified even — at the wrongthink exhibited by any of a number of behaviors that might suggest that sufficient deference has not been paid to some, possibly arbitrary, grouping of those others by the SJWs themselves. Culturally appropriating a traditional Chinese dress for prom? How dare you?
Another hallmark of such a body is that, in apparent response to its oft-noted (here and elsewhere) propensity to eat its own, many of its members are excruciatingly nimble at trying to get ahead of the outrage curve to be among the first to call out bad behavior; even the slightest hesitation could be viewed with extreme suspicion about commitment to cause. No room for reflection here; Jesus would be dead under a pile of rocks before he could even finish “Let he who is without sin…”
SHG,
Joan is sending this video link to her very liberal sisters. I’m fucked. Damn you.
All the best.
RGK
If one of them is named Jamie you’re in for a real treat.
SHG,
When we can properly avoid it, I am with you on not using epithets that are intended to describe the race, religion or ethnicity of another person.* But I think we should free “fuck.”
It is really quite a good word. Indeed, I refer you to Professor Fairman’s wonderful law review article (and later a book) on the word. See Christopher Fairman, Fuck, 28 Cardozo L. Rev. 1711 (2006-2007). Hysterically (forgive my use of that word), the Harvard Law Review rejected his article in a letter that abridged his title this way: “F**k.” That was just plain silly.
All the best.
Dick Head
* I smiled at your illustrative use of the word “kike.” I hadn’t heard that word since my younger days on the stomping grounds of our brother Gamso where I grew up.
I’m familiar with Prof. Fairman’s article, which ironically was published by Cardozo.
“Motherf….r” this “motherf….r” that in wiretaps run head-to-head with the N word. That bothers us too. Grrrr.
Context matters, but the baggage we have loaded onto the word counts for more, in the long run. As for context, I don’t use the word “nigger”, and won’t even quote it, in certain contexts. There are social constraints, or at least were, to the extent of situations similar to not saying “Jesus was a faggot” in a Christian church. It’s rude, if nothing else. What the post is describing, however, is something else again.
What we have, however, is a return to the worst of responses to “offensive” words, the euphemism – and it is practically law that, unless you are under extreme circumstances, or are a member of a special caste, you must always use euphemisms. Now, for courtesy’s sake, I can see it that way, but we are way, way beyond that. To not use “the N-word” instead of the source word is to court personal destruction, regardless of mens rea.
The thing is, however, that a euphemism is useless unless the listener /knows the forbidden word/. “The N-word” is meaningless to a person who has never heard the word “nigger” before. Same for f*ck, sh*t, and w*rk, and the rest of the obscenities. For fuck’s sake, my autocorrect recognized the first two, while wanting to correct w*rk. Asshole software.
But we’re way beyond rudeness now. The word “nigger” is a shibboleth to which we must all prostrate ourselves before. The rules around its use are complex and arcane, so if in doubt, use the word that means you mean the forbidden word. It’s a linguistic Voldemort, but easier to use than “the word which must never be named”.
Now we have gotten to the point where a sitting judge and the respective lawyers freak out, because they dare not even /quote/ the word “nigger” when (persumably) the speaker was a member of the special class which is allowed to use the word promiscuously, and even carelessly, all without consequence. Anyone else, it’s a death sentence.
Simply put, there is little actual difference between forcing the majority to use the “N-word” and forcing someone to stand for the Anthem when they have no belief or agreement in doing so. Forcing someone to attend worship services does not make them a believer, just someone who goes through the motions.
The “N-word” points directly to the word it veils, “nigger”. It replaces the word – but what it does is strip the word of all context, rendering things incomprehensible by simple replacement. As well use “the Forbidden Word” as your euphemism, for all the understanding that remains. Or just ******, and be done with it.
Not saying the word has become /more important than transferring information/. The necessity has even infected SHG, who is notorious for demanding that the twittersphere remember that words have definitions, as well as the lawyers he mentioned. The forced dilemma was on full display today.
Years ago, I swore off euphemisms unless absolutely demanded by context. No more cutesy word games or asterisks, I say what I mean, and I quote accurately. If I am discussing the word “nigger”, as here, that’s what I write. I did it because to me, the whole system smacks of cowardice. Everyone knows the offensive words, but no one speaks them, but resorts to a clumsy, ad hoc code that simply substitutes a code word for the real word.
And as SHG has noticed, this practice may signal virtue, but the compliance rendered by the “law” literally makes things stupider. Even the courts dare not quote it in context, with a person’s future on the line. Instead, there’s a freakout about how to make the euphemism carry the data of the word, when it literally can’t.
Bottom line, “the N-Word” has gone beyond virtue signalling. We are now sacrificing information on its altar, as an offering to the g*ds of propriety. I say fuck that noise. Because that’s what the term “the N-word” adds to the signal. It’s a layer of static atop the conversation, fuzzing out the Forbidden Word rather than delivering the message clearly and understandably. Again, fuck that noise.
Since what I am covering doesn’t appear to relate much to other POVs, for once I will not apologize for running long, either. Thus the necessity of adding text, since there are few poiners to concepts that everyone agrees on, on this topic. Pointers are all over the place in the comments, but few even touching on where I’ve gone. I’m making a case for a POV that isn’t being discussed. In fact, I went even longer than I planned, because without shared concepts, brevity is difficult. Anyway, back to today’s episode.
Ban me for length or ban me for daring to actually type the word “nigger”, but this is a hill I will risk “dying” on. When clarity is sacrificed for the sake of principle, it isn’t the clarity that needs adjustment. Principles must adhere to facts, not wishful thinking.
In the decades since Lenny Bruce was ruined because of the words he chose, we instead have chosen to sanctify words like “nigger”. How’s that worked out? See the problem of the word “nigger” evaporating any time soon, if we keep it on that altar as a holy artifact, one that must always be seen, but never named? Ain’t done it yet, y’all, but maybe more of the same, but with even more punitive measures and byzantine rules will help this next time, or the time after that, et cetera.
In summation, devotion to never uttering the word “nigger” actually makes everyone dumber and everything worse, because we replaced the word with a pointer that cannot deliver information beyond “replacement for sacred forbidden word”.
But cowardly or not, euphemisms such as “the N-W*rd” are a crutch for mental laziness, one that comes at a higher cost than people realize. It’s a form of Newspeak, and little more. Perhaps the L-words and J-words of this B-word can explain why I am wr*ng, but they might have to use E-words instead of re*l w*rds. See what I mean?
B-word r*gards,
N*m*
P.S. I had an idea, suddenly, about how to shorten this, but as the man said, I don’t have time to write a short comment today. SWMBO lost an argument with gravity, and I’m coordinating around that. Slight apologies for length, now.
WTL;dr
Correct. I just now realized that the above approach, trying to cover all bases, is a product of my over-emphasis on conveying understanding rather than just putting out an information broadcast for whoever might be listening. I can’t control the reception of their radios, so better to keep the message short, get it in before they change frequencies. In the mental works now.
So, in light of that,
TL,DR: Euph*m*sms pr*duce c*nfusion and st*pidity while concealing nothing. Wh* do we keep doing this st*pid sh*t, when it only makes things worse? It’s a cosmetic fix, at best, revealing what it conceals while eliminating meaning in the process. They do more damage than they prevent.
Regards,
Nemo
P.S. For the record, that tldr was way shorter than the “better” idea I had mentioned. I love new insights, so thanks, SHG, your reply did me good.
For what little it’s worth, when I’ve taught Huck Finn (back in the days of my first career), I spoke the word when reading passages to the class.. And I’ve used it in briefs (and would aloud in court when quoting). I’m not at all sure, and I’m not interested enough to check, but I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that it’s appeared on my blog.
When I said I don’t use it, then, I suppose I was perhaps misleadingly expansive. What I meant, what I do, is not use it casually in conversation or writing. It’s not part of my quotidian vocabulary, and I’m not given to being gratuitously offensive. But it’s part of other people’s daily usage, and when necessary I’ll say it. There’s no word I won’t under appropriate circumstances.
When Cohen v. California (1971) was before the court, the lawyers used the word as did the Justices. 37 years later, in FCC v. Fox (2008), Roberts began argument by admonishing the lawyers not to use the word, so lawyers and Justice all said, “the F-word.” Which was pretty [fucking*] stupid.
*Ed. Note: FTFY.
*Thanks.
You may be able to say “kike” but my young friends are so woke I’m an awful person for doing so….or even telling a Jewish mother joke.
The joke, “How many Jewish mothers does it take to screw in a light bulb?” isn’t acceptable, even though the punch line is likely true
Stereotypes don’t become stereotypes without some kernel of truth.
Or a lot of it. My own Jewish grandmother from Flatbush was a genuine Lenny Bruce caricature.
At least you didn’t say “girls.”
Crap, I just said it!