“Ban” or “Boycott?”
29 November 2006 by Eve
Something’s been bothering me since I heard it on the radio on my way in to work this morning…
Host Stephanie Miller of The Stephanie Miller Show interviewed the Rev. Jesse Jackson about the call he’s making along with Rep. Maxine Waters to “ban” at least “public” use of the word “nigger” in the wake of Michael Richards’ public racist rant. Personally, I couldn’t care less if the word completely passes out of the English language; I probably find it more offensive and disgusting than a lot of my younger African-American friends who bandy it about thanks to some rap and hip-hop music; but I find the word “ban” far more disturbing. Doesn’t it mean “censor?”
As a writer, I score censorship high up on my list of threats to civil rights and freedoms, and it concerns me that banning specific words here in the US may not stop. There are already words that aren’t supposed to be spoken on radio and TV, and the ban on some of them definitely constitutes censorship in my opinion. Do we really need to go any farther with banning words? Where will we draw the line and say, “No, we’ve done enough censoring; this one will just have to stay”?
Our British commenter Old Git has been keeping us informed of efforts in the UK to outlaw speech against religion that could conceivably be considered “offensive,” a development that quite frankly worries me. Is that what’s next for the US, a banning of anti-religious or religion-critical words such as – oh, I don’t know – “fundy?” Will outlawing the public use of the n-word not also inevitably lead to outlawing the public use of words such as “Gawd” for “God,” “Jeebus” for “Jesus,” or even “MoeHammered” for “Mohammed”?
Of course, I understand that like any other civil right, an individual’s freedom of speech stops where another’s starts; as a journalism student, I heard the classic example of punishing the yelling of “fire!” in a crowded movie theatre over and over again ad nauseum. But does this apply to, as Jackson phrases it, “public discourse” as in the media?
Obviously, being able to say something doesn’t necessarily mean it should be said; my concern is with the policing of it. As individuals, we all have the right not to listen to something that offends us, so Richards’ audience reacted to his ravings in what I consider an absolutely appropriate way: they voted with their feet and walked out on his show. But I would never support an official, governmental measure of actually banning him from ever putting on a show again, or even saying the word again.
If what Jackson is suggesting is truly a boycott of programs, performers, and media that use the n-word on a regular basis, then I don’t have a problem with that. Boycotting is a time-honored way of expressing your views; I for one refuse to watch most movies that depict rape, and I decide on a case-by-case basis whether I will watch films that have a strong but not enacted rape theme. However, that’s the extent of my protest, and if others agree and join with me in it, then fine; if not, I just go on without them.
But Jackson used the word “ban” so often in his conversation with Miller that it started to send shivers down my spine, and I don’t mean pleasant ones; “banning” does not equal “boycotting” in my book – it means “forbidding.” “Censoring.” Should we start stockpiling our copies of Huckleberry Finn as a precaution?
Then again, maybe I’m making a mountain out of molehill. I don’t know; what do you think?
29 November 2006, on 6:29 pm
Eve - there is a big difference between boycotting and banning. Like you said, boycotting is a way of expressing one’s views about a certain thing, while banning is censorship and restrictions placed on people by the force of the government. That is dangerous and will only escalate. There are hundreds and hundreds of words and phrases which people could put on the “list to ban.”
29 November 2006, on 6:37 pm
That’s what I’m concerned about, Star; Miller’s site for the show describes the conversation as being about a proposed “boycott,” but in the actual interview, both she and Jackson used the word “ban” a few times. I don’t even remember a single mention of the word “boycott,” but then I haven’t listened to the exchange again. Maybe they didn’t realize it they were doing it, and I’m definitely going to tune into her show tomorrow to see if she makes any comment about that discrepancy.
29 November 2006, on 6:56 pm
Censorship in any form should tweak the nerves of even the most timid lover of freedom.
Racism is always ugly and stupid, and in need of discouragement. That being said, the desire to fine or jail people for their insensitive words is, to my mind, one of the hallmarks of a fearful freedom hater. There is a reason that it is the first amendment; without nearly absolute free speech (anything short of rioting) the only other amendment that even matters is the second. If you are not even allowed expression, what other remedy is there except to start actually shooting those you hate or disagree with?
I don’t think you are mountaining the molehill-not at all. Perhaps the good rev. Jackson should be grateful that there aren’t more people like myself, who discriminate viciously against mealy-mouthed, nutless political opportunists such as himself. Racists aren’t the only ones who need a good stfu now and then.
Also, if Jackson is serious about curtailing racist speech, why is “nigger” the only no-no? Plenty of others out there. I guess it only matters if it’s bad for black people, notwithstanding that black people are responsible for the vast majority of the word’s use these days. But then Jackson has always operated on the intellectual level of a rapper, assuming that being able to rhyme two words in the same run-on sentence is a sign of sophistication.
That’s my 50-cent on the subject, anyway. Longtime lurker, first time commenter from the beautiful Central Coast area of California.
29 November 2006, on 7:16 pm
Eve,
I have always believed that if an individual is to claim that they have any rights in a specific society that they must also recognise that they have concommitant obligations to that society. In short, rights equal responsibilities.
So, okay, I should be responsible enough not to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded venue when none exists, but that is not an abrogation of my right to free speech.
Also, I should not use the word ‘nigger’ when referring to black people, any more than they should use the word ‘honkey’ when referring to whites, when the sole purpose is to be offensive to the other party. However, that is not to say that it is unacceptable to use those words per se, though for the moment I cannot think of a good example of when it would be appropriate to do so.
Having said that, I agree with you that banning a word or activity simply because one finds it objectionable is not the best way to proceed. Much better is to show one’s disapprobation for language or behaviour that one considers unacceptable, reprehensible, irrational, or otherwise ‘beyond the pale’.
Hence, I tell people who crack racist or sexist ‘jokes’ in my presence that they are being offensive; likewise I tell religious believers of every stripe that they are manifesting psychotic or sociopathic behaviour, depending on whether they appear to believe the nonsense they spout or not.
Incidentally, when I was brought up, we were educated that it was offensive to refer to ‘black people’ as such; we were told by our masters that the proper and respectful form of designation was ‘coloured people’. Years later social attitudes changed, and we were told that if was offensive to refer to ‘coloured people’ but should use the designation ‘black’ instead. Unsurprising, perhaps, that some people simply use the word ‘nigger’ throughout.
Personally, the word ‘reverend’ (as in Jessie Jackson) is as offensive to me as is the word ‘nigger’, ‘honkey’, or any other vile epithet. The established churches of both Scotland and England have even more offensive titles, such as ‘the very reverend’, or ‘the reverend doctor’ etc., as if these psychopathologically damaged human beings are worthy of special respect per se (and that the level of respect that should be accorded to them can be ranked).
On second thought, perhaps we should have a ban against certain words and titles!
29 November 2006, on 7:23 pm
When I was about six or seven the family went to visit my grandparents. My Grandpa used the “N” word frequently and probably thought nothing of it. On the car ride home I tried the “N” word out. The car came to an abrupt halt, my Dad got out, opened the back door and dragged me out to the side of the road where he proceded to lay an ass-whooping on me like I had never experienced. He then told me that that word was not in my vocabulary - EVER! He also pointed out that saying “that word” in the wrong place could result in ass-kicking far worse than I had just received.
I will never forget that lesson.
BTW- The Grandpa that used the “N” word was my Dad’s father. Rather ironic, eh?
29 November 2006, on 8:05 pm
George Carlin’s List of words you can’t say on television (shows how long the list of banned words and phrases could get!)
29 November 2006, on 8:46 pm
What these people seem to be forgetting is that language naturally tends to change, and just like clothing fashions, words go in and out of style.
However, if you try to put a ban on something, that doesn’t make it go away any sooner than normal. In fact, the word fuck has been around for centuries, although it was taboo all throughout. Yes, even at some points, it was banned:
“Fuck was outlawed in print in England (by the Obscene Publications Act, 1857) and the U.S. (by the Comstock Act, 1873). The word may have been shunned in print, but it continued in conversation, especially among soldiers during WWI.”
Clearly times have changed a bit, but this word is still around. Perhaps even helped to survive DUE to its forbidden nature.
Point is, banning something isn’t likely to help it go away. By banning it you’re simply bringing attention to it, and it can be as simple as reverse psychology for many people. Place a cake in front of any kid and tell them that they can’t have any, then walk out of the room. Let’s see if there aren’t any sticky fingerprints in the icing at all when you return.
29 November 2006, on 10:19 pm
Would a ban mean that blacks couldn’t say it either? To be an equitable law it would have to be. Intent shouldn’t matter if it’s the word that’s the problem and not the utterer (which is, of course, preposterous).
29 November 2006, on 10:20 pm
I find it amusing that when a white guy uses the word it is offensive but when a black man uses the word we’re supposed to think he’s being tender and endearing. The same thing with Dawg. It is all just more slave talk to me. one person is being a bully to someone else and that someone else is supposed to take it and like it. As If? Sheesh
Newt Gingrich is talking about curtailing certain rights of speech as well. I guess it is in the air. The rethugs no longer have the full control of the country like they did a few weeks ago. They are playing the game book just like the thugs that they are. Instead of focusing on Iraq, Criminal behavior in the Government and real social issues. The thugs dream up phony problems like freedom of speech problems. Anything to keep the real problems at bay.
Let people say what they like and if they get shouted down so what. Or is it really “Freedom of speech so long as you don’t say too much”
29 November 2006, on 10:50 pm
Surely there are instances when the use of the word “nigger” is perfectly fine. Here are two examples:
“Calling somebody ‘nigger’ is considered offensive.”
“The first novel by Agatha Christie that I read was ‘Ten little nigger boys’.”
Honestly, I giggle every time I hear somebody say ‘the N-word’ or ‘the F-word’. It feels childish! If you are going to discuss the meaning or appropiateness of ‘fuck’, ’shit’ or ‘nigger’ (or even ’sex’!), if you are going to refer to the term with a metalinguistic function then it is perfectly acceptable to use the whole word. You are going to get more respect from me and your point will come out clearer if you talk like an adult. It is not offensive. Oh, and writing things like ‘f-ck’ or ‘f—’, as well as beeping them off on TV is equally silly.
PS: Eve, this is nothing personal just because you used the ‘N-word’ on your post. I know most Americans do. But then again most Ameri cans are Christians… I do not know of other languages with such as use.
29 November 2006, on 11:19 pm
The double standard in this country is amazing. The WWE runs a skit where the black tag team Cryme Tyme (yes, spelt that way) beats up a guy playing Kramer. No one bats an eye.
Chris Rock and other black comedians make all kinds of anti-white jokes, and no one cares. In fact, there are black people who HATE white people.
Yet no one cares.
Affirmative action is racist… yet no one cares.
But when a white man says nigger, well it’s World War III, and all of a sudden race relations in the US are still at pre-Civil War levels. If that were true, then people like Jesse Jackson would be hung for speaking out against it.
But that’s okay. Jesse Jackson stopped being relevant a long time ago, so he has to blow things out of proportion in order to keep his status and power.
29 November 2006, on 11:29 pm
NoGodBlog has a post on this same topic and states exactly my opinion on “the N-word” much better:
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2006/11/29/banning_the_n_word
29 November 2006, on 11:42 pm
Banning of any type is wrong when it concerns free speech. It offends him, get over it. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions. Whether what they say really is their opinion or just a way to get money (as a comedian or whatever), it’s their right to say it. This is why most of us don’t support bans on xianity. As nice as it sounds, it could be used on us, as well, and anyone else.
(off topic) I kept trying to post a reply, but each time I’d write it, I’d then delete it because it didn’t sound right. Suffice it to say that I feel the same way about people of ANY color as I do of people of ANY religion. It shouldn’t come up. With religious people, there’s no reason that their religion should enter into ANY conversation we have, unless we are discussing philosophy. Otherwise, it’s just not important. The same goes for black (African American? not sure anymore…) people or other ethnicities. Obviously I can see that our skin isn’t the same color. But who cares!? I don’t.
I don’t like getting blamed for the wrongs of people 150 years ago (and farther back). I have never and would never own another person. So why is it okay to insult me in commercially produced media such as music albums and television, yet if an insult goes the other direction, it is a national crisis making CNN. Racism goes both ways and I am tired of the hypocrisy. I would ask that black leaders look at their communities (as Mr. Bill Cosby often does), ask them why they allow themselves to be defiled by so-called music “artists” and why they allow their children to continue the damage by emulating it. I’ve been poor and it doesn’t mean that you need to sell drugs, shoot people, or be in a gang. It means you need to be more responsible. Perhaps personal responsibility needs to be a phrase that Mr. (Yes, MR.-nothing more) Jackson needs to say a little more often, and mean it.
Someone may take this as some kind of racist statement. I am not racist. Am I against “gangster culture”? Yes, be the person white or black, I assume someone projecting that image is dangerous, exactly what they want, apparently. I dress in a sort of bohemian goth style when I have the energy and I know what it feels like to be looked at like a freak who eats children. At least atheism is something we can hide. I think racists are evil, white racists or black racists, or any other color.
(I’m tired, drunk, and rambling. My apologies. Also, apologies if my html is FUBAR.)
29 November 2006, on 11:46 pm
When you tell a 16 year old girl not to go to someone’s house when there aren’t any parents home, they’ll definitely do it. When you tell them to “say ‘no’ to drugs”, you better believe they’ll do it. Such is life and human nature and that’s why banning doesn’t work. Humans can’t stand to be told “No.”
30 November 2006, on 12:40 am
Check this ending episode of the Boondocks. It’s called return of the king.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEuwyvYZS3I
30 November 2006, on 12:45 am
Bean- That’s one of the points I made in my post #7. So true.
Advisor Moppet- I love that show. It makes some very good points, especially in that episode. I hope some people who act like that do pay attention. The way he defines that word in that episode is very fitting, too.
30 November 2006, on 12:58 am
Yeah, the first time I saw that episode, that’s what I was thinking. The blacks who use the word “nigger” or “nigga” to address each other can’t all of a sudden get offended when a white person uses it.
Bean,
Totally agree. There was an episode of Penn and Teller Bullshit! on google video that was about reperations. I kept thinking, wait, why should me and my family have to pay reparations to blacks with an ancester who was a slave? My family arrived in the country about eighty years ago. That doesn’t seem fair.
30 November 2006, on 1:18 am
Russman isn’t the only one to get the lesson on the N word young. I was a little younger when my brother and I were saying it, not knowing what it meant. That was the only time my dad used a belt on me. That was over 40 years ago, I’ve not forgotten it.
30 November 2006, on 1:22 am
Lol, how dumb, nigger originates from the Latin word Niger, meaning Black. Its an easy way to describe black people, and as they call people of Anglo-Saxon descent “white people” I don’t think its racist at all. Talk about double standards. Another case of political correctness gone way too far.
30 November 2006, on 1:25 am
Another point I forgot to mention. Ever noticed how people don’t think of alot of things in a bad way until the PC people bring it up? Trust them to think of it that way…
30 November 2006, on 8:45 am
In defense of Michael Richards and other entertainers of his genre–if you heckle and taunt a comedian (a person that makes his/her living from witty quips), you get what you ask for, insult for insult, quid pro quo. This whole incident was blown way outta proportion. Banning words–right! Like an entire nation will suddenly wipe a word off of it’s tongue because some stupid law. Kinda like when we all quit lighting up our joints!
Maybe the “nigger” sayers will share a jail cell with the pot smokers. You know, that jail cell that was previously occupied by the murderer, but had to be vacated to make room for the REAL criminals.
30 November 2006, on 10:27 am
Exactly. The use of a word is a social standard and should be allowed to ebb and flow with the tide of social change. While I don’t like the use of that word, I would never support a ban of any kind. Banning words is another brick in the path to banning thought.
Whether my family owned slaves previous to the Civil War or not isn’t a valid argument as to why I owe anyone anything. As I said before, I would never own another human being and you cannot hold the future accountable for the past.
What exactly do you mean? I’m not sure if you’re annoyed at the hypcrisy of the black people who use the word regularly then get upset when someone outside their culture uses it, or if it’s something else. Sorry, it’s my fault for not understanding, but some clarification might help me out.
Isn’t that usually the case. It’s the news’ job to blow things out of propportion. I’d like to know what was said to him and what he said and exactly how it went. Because THAT doesn’t seem to be posted anywhere on the ‘net. Real information isn’t pertinent.
At a casino I worked in, there was a racist guest at our craps table. All of the gaming hosts (dealers) happened to be black and he was making all kinds of comments. One of the girls got pissed, yelled at him, called him a slaver. I wasn’t really upset, the guy deserved it, but when she went on and on about that “fucking white man, fucking slaver”-well, I’m not sure how I feel. Her right to say it, yes. The guy certainly deserved it. But acting like I was in on the “joke” was a little weird. I think that’s proof that she didn’t mean it toward all white people, just that particular man. Still, had it been the other way, all white hosts with a rude black guest, calling the guest a “nigger” would have been a fire-able offense. I want to know what the difference is. In either case, the guest is always right and would have received no reprimand at all.
I live in Louisiana and was raised by racist, mild xian, extreme Republickens who voted for David Duke (former KKK Grand Wizard) for governor. I don’t know how I turned out different. Racism from either direction is wrong and past treatment of the black/African-descent race (not they themselves) is not a free ticket to hate someone who is white. Just another ramble.
This is the point at which Sean would enter and yell at me for being so insensitive and mention the Jim Crowe laws, etc. However, again, I didn’t make those laws and I haven’t treated anyone as a second class citizen, so I get angry when I am held responsible.
30 November 2006, on 10:29 am
Personally, I could care less if the word completely passes out of the English language;
THAT should be “couldn’t care less.”
30 November 2006, on 10:30 am
Can we ban the word “honkey”, too? sheesh.
30 November 2006, on 10:51 am
The trouble with banning a word is that it makes it more appealing, particularly to those who would use it in a negative way.
Niger is also country in Africa, on the West Coast.
From what I understand the thing cause most outrage at Michael Richard’s rate was not that he said ‘nigger’, he suggested that the two men who heckled him should be lynched- he said that 50 years ago they would have been strung up and stabbed with pitchforks.
30 November 2006, on 11:21 am
Technically, that’s probably true, that happened often 50 years ago. Did he say they SHOULD or that they would have been? Regardless, the question I have is what did THEY say to him? Surely he didn’t just go up and start spouting the lyrics to “Black Spade” (?? from HAIR) to a mixed crowd. Did they just think his act sucked, so they started insulting him? If so, they deserve whatever he said. As cry4turtles said:
I will need to research this because it still seems too one-sided to be accurate reporting.
30 November 2006, on 1:49 pm
I did more research. While it seems both parties are to blame, I won’t pass judgement either way til I can get to YouTube and see the footage. Sigh. I just with that black leaders would talk about how whites and blacks should work together, if they find that they must go on national television. Instead of being so hateful all of the time. They are poor examples, but they are also the most prominent. And it’s in their best interest to keep poor black people poor. Just as it’s in the interest of evangelists (esp. tele-) to keep their audience stupid. As long as they can keep their community unhappy, they can keep raking in the dough. More nonsense from me, though not drunk, just sleepy.
30 November 2006, on 2:17 pm
Fixed, LesserFool!
Great comments, everyone; you’ve brought up additional points I hadn’t thought about.
30 November 2006, on 3:12 pm
Hey, I’m really offended if someone calls me a “stupid bitch”. The French don’t like being called frogs. Newfoundlanders don’t like being called newfies. Gay men, fags. If they’re going to ban one derogatory name then they would have to ban all derogatory names.
“Sticks and stones”…, the saying goes.
Why do people still assume that banning something will make it go away? It certainly hasn’t worked with illegal drugs. Banning a word is not going to make prejudice disappear. It could very well promote more racist sentiments by the resentment it would create.
Michael Shermer wrote an eSkeptic article about the Richards affair, “Kramer’s Conundrum”, where he suggests that everyone is racist unconsciously. And that this is a natural tendency to sorting people into those who are part of our cultural group and those who are not. There’s a link in the article that takes you to the Harvard test site where you can test your implicit associations (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/).
30 November 2006, on 7:55 pm
Advisor Moppet, the fallout from that P&T Bullshit episode was sadly predictable. Those who are pro-reparations were calling everyone against it racist.
30 November 2006, on 8:34 pm
Ramen, Lynda, and I fixed your link.
30 November 2006, on 9:01 pm
When one minority group is protected from being insulted, even unintentionally, and other groups don’t have the same protections, the protected group runs the show in the same manner as the spoiled child who throws temper tantrums to always get whatever he wants. Don’t kid yourselves, this is what is going on here. And it couldn’t happen if guilty white liberals (and predatory white lawyers) didn’t enable it.
30 November 2006, on 9:34 pm
I’m all in favor of anyone’s right to say anything- so long as they’re willing to take the repercussions of such an action. I’m about as white as one can get, but, when I hear that awful word bandied about by a white person, I’m liable to punch them in the face. It’s a reflex thing, I can’t help myself. This also holds true for gay slurs and misogyny- beyond the typical locker room objectification. It must be a Pavlovian thing.
Personally, I’d like to ban the “-”, that’s right, the hyphen. Whether it’s like a dagger differentiating “-Americans” from one another or just as a monument to the fence-sitting of one who can’t make up their minds just what their last name is. I can almost understand women who want to retain their names after marriage but, no…fuck it, make up your motherfucking mind and pick one. I swear to fuck if I see another male college athlete with a hyphenated last name, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll kill a kitten!
30 November 2006, on 9:46 pm
Thanks, Eve, for the fix.
30 November 2006, on 10:00 pm
Raindog writes: I’m all in favor of anyone’s right to say anything- so long as they’re willing to take the repercussions of such an action… when I hear that awful word bandied about by a white person, I’m liable to punch them in the face.
This would be far more effective than a ban on the word. When white people take a stand against racist remarks made by their white friends and neighbors it is far more impressive. Peer pressure works very well.
Raindog, please don’t kill at kitten.
30 November 2006, on 10:21 pm
You’re welcome, Lynda. And I do believe I’m getting a reputation in my family for openly objecting to hate words (as opposed to “curse” words, like “shit”). I’ve noticed that when someone does say one around me, they now twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify their use; as a result, the racist and sexist remarks are decreasing overall. It’s just too much work to say something you know Eve is right in objecting to!
Raindog, kill a blastocyst instead ;-)!
1 December 2006, on 12:11 am
Blastocysts are really great, straight from the liquid nitrogen, smeared on a cracker. Of course, as Andy Griffith knows, “Everything’s good when it sits on a Ritz!” My partner in crime- the Bonnie to my Clyde, and I just killed off countless millions of Spermatozoa-Americans a few moments ago. Like Stalin said; “…a mere statistic.”
1 December 2006, on 2:13 am
And the first thing you did afterward is comment on here??? That’s dedication!
Makes me happy to know others out there are happy.
1 December 2006, on 5:58 am
Some of the comments here are striking me as odd. Normally I read GiFS sitting on my jewel-encrusted throne of power surrounded by 73 nubile virgin servants (I picked up an extra one in a post-season trade) and I am uniformly swelled with learning from the excellent posts and comments.
This whole “Nigger vs Kramer” issue is almost surreal. And despite what some people have been saying here, that we “haven’t seen the whole story”, and that hecklers rudely interrupting a professional comedian “deserve WHATEVER they get”… I’m telling you in no uncertain terms that a racist tirade is just wrong. There is no “whole story”.
If you think so, you’re wrong too.
I don’t care if the two black people in the audience were throwing empty beer bottles at Richards. Emphatic, purposeful use of crude racial epithets like “nigger” or “kike” or “gook” is always stupid and never “deserved”. Any comedian worth a shit should be able to deal with heckling. Even mediocre comics have sharp, well crafted responses to loudmouth chuckleheads who try to butt in that are both crushing to the heckler and hilarious to the rest of the audience. Hell, some of the comics I know even ask their friends to show up and heckle just to be able to dish out some pain and liven up the show a little. Why in unholy fuck would anybody ever deal with a heckler in a way that makes THEM come off as a dipshit hack? “Upside down with a fork in your ass”?? Pathetic. Hurling racial epithets is like Elmer Fudd trying to blast his shotgun when Bugs has his fingers in the barrels – the hurt just comes right back at you. The person spouting the racial insults ALWAYS makes themselves look like a hillbilly fuckwit or hateful whackjob. Think about that. I’ll wait.
Bean –
The confrontation at the casino was handled badly – the girl croupier just made herself look unprofessional by hurling epithets at the customer. Her response wasn’t justified. She WORKS there. That kind of response is akin to screaming at a misbehaving child.
All she had to do was tell the man she wasn’t going to allow him to play at her table if he continued to talk like that. I’ve worked in nightclubs. I’ve dealt with my share of obnoxious, drunk jackasses. I never tolerated racial slurs, and I absolutely never used them. There is no justification for using them. That type of “insult” is the last vestige of those who can’t articulate their anger, of those who can’t even figure out what it is they’re angry about. We call those people morons, pinheads, pricks and losers. Timeless classics of the putdown that work no matter what color the moron pinhead prick loser’s skin happens to be.
Richards’ calling his hecklers “niggers” did absolutely nothing besides make HIM look like a raging, racist fuckwad. Why is that important? Richards’ wealth and fame (that he refers to during his Laugh Factory rant) came about from his years on Seinfeld, a show often criticized for a lack of racial diversity. His behavior reflects on the others involved with the show.
Also, his high profile dive into the douchebag deep end just made it that much easier for puffed-up holier-than-thou pains in the ass like Jesse to saddle up the high horses and trot their way onto the media cycle.
As so many others have wisely stated here already, “banning” a word is asinine. It just gives EVEN MORE power to the word – which is why rap and hip-hop “artists” (shudder) toss it around in an effort to reduce the power “nigger” has traditionally wielded against black people. Familiarity deflates the irrational, emotional, knee-jerk response-impulse a slur like “nigger” tends to evoke.
Zipi-
“I giggle every time I hear somebody say ‘the N-word’ or ‘the F-word’. It feels childish!”
It IS childish. It sounds ridiculous to any reasonable adult to have to muzzle intelligent discourse with that crap.
They’ll bleep “nigger” on CNN, but somehow crass loudmouths like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson are free and unfettered to spread their fallacious ignorance and outright lies like so much rancid Miracle Whip.
GAAaah! Holy shitstorm!
When is this country gonna step up, grow a sack, and act like a mature, informed adult instead of throwing piss-ant tantrums like some whiny, mealy-mouthed little “b-word” on MTV’s “Sweet 16″?
And if anybody tries to ban my sweet-ass handle, I will rise up and smite them with my veined, throbbing MoeHammer.
Love to the GiFS regulars.
The rest of you trolls and fundagelical troglodytes can suck it.
1 December 2006, on 10:24 am
There’s a problem with banning words, ideas, concepts and ideologies. One of those problems is that it seems to make them more attractive.
I don’t think that I should be protected from insult and neither should anyone else. (This is not to be misinterpreted as condoning deliberate acts of insult.)
There are lots of words which I could be called which might insult me, or which I may find offensive. Ultimately though, the onus is on me as to how I react to insult and ultimately the onus is on everyone else how they react to insult.
Being insulted should never be misconstrued as carte blanche to commit an illegal act.
Aparts from the fact that legislating and enforcing laws which ban words, would be a nightmare, I strongly suspect that the banning of words, books, substances, beliefs etc is completely counter -productive.
1 December 2006, on 11:20 am
Any comedian worth a shit should be able to deal with heckling. Even mediocre comics have sharp, well crafted responses to loudmouth chuckleheads who try to butt in that are both crushing to the heckler and hilarious to the rest of the audience.
MoeHammered - I agree with you. I have seen Robin Williams, Sam Kenison, Carlos Mencia, George Carlin, Jay Leno and even the insult king, Don Rickles deal with hecklers in a funny way that turns the hecklers into part of their comedy routine and many times even the hecklers have to laugh or they just shut up. If someone is really obnoxious, that is what bouncers are for. If this guy was really distrupting Michael Richards’ act, then he should have requested that the person be removed from the audience and go on.
Like Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise, I think that Michael Richards has a bit of a mental problem that he should get some treatment for.
1 December 2006, on 12:07 pm
Moehammered and Stardust,
I agree about the comedians. Michael Richards hasn’t been doing much performing, to my knowledge. Other than his Kramer character portrayal I haven’t seen him in anything particularly noteworthy.
You know what they say about publicity.
1 December 2006, on 12:23 pm
You know what they say about publicity.
Lynda, Yep, some people will do anything for publicity and attract attention to themselves, especially when their popularity has dwindled.
The latest Britney Spears “no underwear crotch flashing” antics is more evidence of that.
1 December 2006, on 3:53 pm
What if Michael had called the hecklers a bunch of low life, gutter crawling cretins? Would that be ok? ‘Nigger’ is meant as a disparaging term. Why would any other disparaging term be better? Is there something magic about that combination of letters? Or is the problem in referring to someone disparagingly? We need to make the right choice about what we wish to avoid. I would (now) avoid a Michael Richards show, not because he used a forbidden word but just because he’s shown himself to be mean and nasty.
1 December 2006, on 7:44 pm
Hey, thanks for weighing in, MoeHammered! I’ve always loved your handle, hence my using it as an example. And I absolutely agree about Richards’ mishandling the heckling: any comedian worth his weight in chuckles knows how to deal with it professionally. I suspect Star’s right: someone’s got major racial issues!
1 December 2006, on 9:33 pm
Eve -
Thanks for the shout-out, but you had me at
“Something’s been bothering me…”
Love your stuff. I shall ban the speech of anyone who says differently.
Praise Be Unto Me
1 December 2006, on 9:41 pm
Glad you like it, Moe!
1 December 2006, on 11:13 pm
Die Anyway -
Yes, it would have been “better” if Richards had called them “low-life, gutter crawling cretins”.
That is addressing them as individuals, making a specific insult. RACIAL slurs, on the other hand, disparage an entire group of diverse people as “lesser than” - the word “nigger” has very real, very palpable power in our society which regarded black people as second class citizens deserving of fewer rights than whites in RECENT history.
We’re talking less than two generations ago.
Hell, the whole “Sun City” political firestorm of South African apartheid was being ignored during the Reagan administration.
“Nigger” isn’t just a “disparaging term” - it is HATEFUL language. Using “nigger” as an insult shows a clear intention on the part of the person that uses it to not just insult the individuals they are immediately referring to, but to equate the behavior of ALL black people with the worst of whatever happens to be pissing them off at the time. Calling two rude black people “niggers” implies that ALL black people are just rude “niggers”. That they are lesser-than because they’re skin is black.
Interesting that you yourself made a connection between “low-life, gutter crawling cretins” and “niggers”. I’m not trying to imply that you are a racist, “DieAnyway”, but seeing “nigger” as some sort of misbehaving sub-set of black people is not the way the epithet originated. The KKK and Aryan Nation regard ALL blacks as “niggers”, as “lesser-than”. That is why the word has such power. Black people were actually LYNCHED because that’s the justice “niggers” supposedly deserved.
That is our history. This is the reality we live in. Richards chose his words and never corrected himself as he raved on.
Insulting people based on traits they have no control over is a crap insult. As a comic, one knows there is an art to insults. Language, in all it’s rich variety, is powerful. Language is how comics make their money.
They should know better. Christ, honkey, YOU should know better.
2 December 2006, on 1:43 am
Apparently, he doesn’t fall into that category. He wasn’t really very funny on Seinfeld, so I can’t see how he would be funny doing standup when Seinfeld always felt like a running standup comedy act.
This story is depressing because, just when I think it’s only Southern cowboy-types that act like this in our modern age, I am reminded that it is everywhere. And, as I’ve said before, Jesse Jackson and his ilk are no better. They aren’t for helping anyone except themselves…to as much money as possible. Why isn’t he out there (or anyone else with money, black or white!) handing out condoms and paying for free vasectomies when people want them. Helping build houses and pay for child care so parents can go to work. Instead, he’s wearing extremely expensive suits and has an entourage. Rappers who talk about how hard life was before they were famous should take some of that money back to their neighborhoods and clean them up. Money can do lots of things, especially when coupled with fame and a humanitarian cause.
I’m tired of people fighting and I wish that they would turn those energies toward something positive.
2 December 2006, on 2:00 am
MoeHammered, thanks for your matter-of-fact take on the whole thing. The only reason I may seem wishy-washy is that I tend to believe only about 1/3 of what I hear/see on news media, and I find that they only tell one side of any story. So, I don’t feel qualified to make any kind of statement. In my view, if BOTH sides are guilty of racial slurring, they should just walk away. Choosing to punish one side over the other (in this case, by suing), would be wrong in such a case. However, if he is the only one, they should sue him if they feel like it. But I don’t know what they said, and it matters to me. It isn’t worse for a white person to insult a black person; all racial hatred is pointless in my view, so if they all did it, they’re all guilty.
I agree that hating someone for the things about them that they can’t change, be it skin color, country of origin, etc. is ridiculous. Don’t we have enough to hate one another for without bringing that stuff in, too? Besides, why should someone want to change their skin color (aside from appeasing bigots)? I love the variety found in the human phenotype.
2 December 2006, on 8:36 am
There is a good poet/rap/music group called The Watts Prophets.
Their best album is “When the 90’s Came”. On it is the song “i’ll stop calling you niggaz”.
“I ain’t mad at whitey, I am mad at you, you low-down niggaz.”
“i’ll stop calling you niggaz when you start acting like black men.”
A documentary on the Watts Prophets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISUoTJaXVBQ
This group was probably the father of rap today.
2 December 2006, on 12:05 pm
After reading post #33, I took a quick look out my back window and lo and behold, one of my mother cats was carrying her kitten to the back of the barn, apparently to safety.
2 December 2006, on 12:13 pm
MoeHammered, point taken. Richard’s certainly could have been more tactful (and strategic) in handeling the hecklers as per his comedic peers. I can’t help but wonder what would Andrew Dice Clay have done? My guess-Richards went way too easy on them.
6 December 2006, on 1:44 am
The problem I have with the idea of a ban is twofold.
One, I’m a strict adherent to the first amendment. Without freedom of expression, we’re basically fucked. It was that freedom which allowed (for instance) a young Ben Franklin to publish incendiary anti-British tracts prior to the US Revolutionary War. It is that freedom which is so commonly abrogated by dictators that need not be enumerated. It is this same freedom which is threatened by the likes of Cheney, Rummy (late, unlamented) and even Bush himself when they try to dictate how The Media ought to think, act or behave in terms of their misbegotten war.
Any time anyone sincerely begins suggesting suspension of free speech, we have to remember what happens when that happens … and even if the cause seems superficially just, we have to wonder if we’re sacrificing a deeper freedom in the name of protecting ourselves from an ephemeral harm.
Are we ready to lose habeas corpus in the name of stopping terrorism? Are we ready to stop using “nigger” in the name of ending racism?
Well, look at that another way. Will racism be stopped because no one can say “nigger” any more?
Will terrorism be stopped because we don’t let accused terrorists be confronted with the evidence against them?
My other reason is very parochial. I like my review of To Kill a Mockingbird and don’t want to take it down just because it’s unfashionable to use the word “nigger”, even when referring to an inarguable work of art.