Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Donald Trump, the N-Word, and the GOP
It’s not okay for white people to use the N-word. I thought this was generally understood and widely accepted for … like a few decades now, but apparently I was wrong. (By the way, if you’re a white person, and you think you’re somehow a victim or being oppressed because you’re not allowed to use the N-word, I pity you.)
This has come up in discussion recently because word once again is circulating that there is a tape (or tapes, plural) of “Apprentice” outtakes that include Donald Trump (among other things) using the N-word.
This story isn’t new. It made the rounds in 2015 and 2016. (Anyone who is aware of Donald Trump’s history of overt racism wasn’t surprised.) I don’t know whether such a tape exists, but some are concerned about it because when Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked this week, she couldn’t guarantee it didn’t exist.
In anticipation of the existence of such a tape and its potential release, we’re already seeing rationalizations (including here on Ricochet) and explanations of how, if Donald Trump was caught on tape using the N-word, it’s either okay or it doesn’t matter.
Okay, so two things: First, it’s not okay. Second, it does matter.
If this tape does exist, and it comes out for all of us to hear, it’s going to do enormous damage to the Republican Party. Because what will certainly follow is legions of Trump apologists explaining how it’s okay.
At which point, the Republican Party will become the It’s-Okay-To-Say-The-N-Word Party. If you care about the electoral success of the Republican Party, you don’t want it to become the It’s-Okay-To-Say-The-N-Word Party.
Further, if you care about conservative governance in the future, to the extent that Donald Trump is associated with that conservative governance, it’s a big problem. If things like deregulation are associated with the Republican Party, and the Republican Party is the It’s-Okay-To-Say-The-N-Word Party, then deregulation becomes It’s-Okay-To-Say-The-N-Word-deregulation. All those conservative federal judges become It’s-Okay-To-Say-The-N-Word judges. Tax cuts become It’s-Okay-To-Say-The-N-Word tax cuts.
For Republicans, if you become the It’s-Okay-To-Say-The-N-Word Party, your brand will be irreparably damaged. For conservatives, if you become the philosophy of It’s-Okay-To-Say-The-N-Word, it will be the end of conservatism. Any claim of moral superiority will be gone. The decent people will have to separate themselves and find some other name to call themselves.
If a tape comes out, you don’t want to be trapped on the wrong side of things. Certain things are beyond the pale. This is one of them. If that tape comes out, don’t rationalize it, because what you hear will not be okay.
Published in General
Moderator Note:
Personal attacks. Vulgarity.Meh – I agree that this garbage shouldn’t be on the main feed. Neither should a huge amount of [redacted]. All of the personality-obsessive craptastic posts that have taken the place of intelligent political discussion have really given Ricochet a black eye, lately. Fortunately for Ricochet, literally nowhere else is immune. Fingers crossed that everyone just snaps out of it at some point in the future. In the meantime, us decent folks have to simply endure the playground [redacted] while formerly normal people run from “girls only” clubhouse to “no girls” clubhouse taunting one another like idiots.
Because that’s how politics works.
You’re not supposed to notice the foundation of crap all of this is built on, Kylez. Just feel your allotted shame and fall in line if you know what’s good for you.
That’s really what I want: to not be the party of Maoist Purges. Be careful what you type. Be careful what you say. Be careful what you think. Because that’s not ok anymore.
Side story:
I once knew two young men, both from the south, one white, one black. They were close friends, roomed together, and would often refer to each other as “my n-word”. Now, many of us, white and black, heard them refer to each other that way. It never bothered anyone because we all knew they were fast friends. Until one day someone who didn’t know them heard the white fellow refer to the black fellow that way. Then it was hellfire and brimstone time. I felt sorry for the young man, because, while he ought to have been more careful, the meaning of the word, as he used it, was a term of endearment.
I think about that story whenever someone says the “n-word” is “beyond the pale.” Words have meaning in context. Does that mean I’m gonna go around defending people for using that particular word? No, least of all Donald Trump. But I do think we need to wait and see what was said before we start profilactating. Unfortunately, for some the notion that a tape might exist is enough to assume that it does. And for some, even if the tape existed and was all that Fred likely thinks it is, they’ll still defend him.
And btw, what does “used the N-word” mean? I’ve never called anybody that in my entire life, but I have said the word in talking about it.
Well said.
My opinion on the matter can best be summarized by Chris Rock.
I’d agree with you on this if the OP was trying to make a case that POTUS actually said this word or that the tape exists. It clearly doesn’t make that argument. It’s pushback against the “it doesn’t matter if he said it” arguments that have been popping up here in multiple threads and OPs since Omarosa reignited these accusations. It’s a legitimate topic of discussion based on what has actually been going on here the last few days.
Really? Because they call us racists even if we behave with perfect decorum.
(a) It would not be the end of conservatism. That is hyperbole.
(b) It might actually puncture the fragile balloon of political correctness.
We must ask ourselves why there is no equivalent of the N-word for white people. Is any white person truly bothered by the word “honky”? I’ve always thought it was just silly.
I do bridle at the false accusations of racism and the overt racism inherent in phrases such as “old, white men” and “white privilege”. Perhaps there is white privilege, but there’s also height privilege, articulate privilege, beauty privilege, athletic privilege, hipness privilege, etc. Tell me what day we’re all supposed to be free from privilege or lack of it and I’ll start policing myself. Until then, I refuse to be ashamed of who I am, not my skin color, not my advantages, nor even my flaws.
Until all humans are universally humane, I suggest we suspend the self-righteous virtue-signalling.
As is so often the case, Henry, I completely agree with you. The word “ni–er” is offensive, I don’t use it, and I don’t like to hear other people use it.
But the entire premise of this posting is laughable. There are many offensive words which I don’t like to hear used. Only ni–er has such talismanic effect. This is a matter of bowing to cultural Marxism and is entirely why I hope that Mr Trump used it; if it turns out that he did, I will support him.
The more we bow to the conventions of the left, the more they control us. We choose to be their slaves.
And now I am going to go do something more productive than continue to comment.
They called me a racist because I wouldn’t support Obamacare, so…
I have to say that I’m of three minds about this entire thread.
On the one hand, I’m impressed by Fred’s ability to post pieces that generate long and heated response chains. I’m not sure it’s a good thing that he does it, but it’s an interesting thing that he can, and so reliably. I think it says something about our animal natures, about our willingness to respond, even perhaps against our better judgment, to obvious and sometimes tiresome provocation.
On the other hand, I would like to see what this conversation might have been like if the original post had actually been a thoughtful and balanced attempt to comment on both sides — or all sides — of what is actually an interesting and debatable issue, that of how we address the unique and fascinating language disparity as regards this racial epithet. Had Fred written it that way, we might have had a conversation that was both less heated and more illuminating. (I’ve made this kind of comment before regarding Fred’s posts: I think he has a lot of underutilized potential and I hope to see it develop over time.)
On the other other hand, I’m glad Fred did not post this to the Main Feed, but instead put it in the member area. The likelihood of this post garnishing the requisite dozen “likes” seems thankfully remote, and so I’ll give Fred a nod for thinking of Ricochet and exercising some self-restraint.
So lean in?
Ricochet style calls for the use of [expletive] in lieu of using vulgarities. Fred has just violated the CoC on multiple occasions. He needs a good redacting.
PS – by N word, do you mean “nary-do-weller”?
Yes, as is demonstrated in the comic SNL “word association” sketch from the 70s where Chevy Chase calls Richard Pryor the n-word. The dogma requires that Huckleberry Finn be removed from the libraries. It’s a stupid, simplistic rule. If the rule were “It’s not okay for anyone to use a harsh term with intent to deride people for something that should not matter and that, in any event, they cannot change” then I would be okay with it. That strikes me as sensible and sensitive to all involved.
I agree with Lenny Bruce that forbidding certain words makes them more powerful. It is the opposite of love to castigate people. Someone once suggested that the best approach is to turn the other cheek when an offense is given.
Funny, and sad. Back then I had hope that we’d all meet in the middle. We’ve only gotten more identitarian as a society. I’m tired, tired, tired of all this.
Yes I did. The last sentence said “If a tape comes out, you don’t want to be trapped on the wrong side of things. Certain things are beyond the pale. This is one of them. If that tape comes out, don’t rationalize it, because what you hear will not be okay.” Which is actually about as short as my RD version, but not quite as pointed.
Sorta hard to do if the word (or its variants) can’t be used in the discussion, no?
Moderator Note:
Nota Bene: this post has recently been pulled from the Main Feed.I agree but I also note that there have been decades of charges of racism against Rothbard, Hoppe, many of the leaders of the Von Mises Institute and both Pauls (mostly attributions from or about the newsletter).
None of these have been based on some conjectured tape of Rothbard et al. Most have been ridiculously overblown. From that I’ll assume all libertarians are “okay” with racism.
Fred’s foolish and unfair misreading of a couple of strings of honest and thoughtful comments is disgraceful.
Putting this virtue signalling nonsense directly on the top of the front page is a really poor call.
All that says is “don’t defend the use of the Nword” not “abandon your support for this President”.
Really? Are you impressed by the buzz Omarosa generated this week?
No it’s not okay.
As to the second point, as HRC said … at this point in time, what difference does it make….Trump with his philandering lying ways, his mocking of the disabled, his attacks on law enforcement and POW’s, his fiscal irresponsibility and anti free trade rhetoric has already tarnished the GOP brand along with a lot of people who have compromised their values to ride in his tailwind. A n-word tape will do nothing to those who have already made the compromise. As for future Generations, it will be like trying to sell them tickets to ride on a great new cruise ship called the Titanic.
Well, when you get dog poop on your shoe you generally make it a priority to wipe it off. That we find it so important dosn’t mean that we want to get dog poop on our shoes.
I think that is exactly what has happened to this particular epithet. People don’t hear very often so it has become more powerful.
In polite circles, it has been considered unacceptable since the 1970s.
It’s a word in its own category.
As an editor, I would say that I know of no other word that has the same social taboo surrounding it. I’m pretty sure it came about because people who were exposed to it only saw it in literature on slavery, and it was so horrifying in its use that we wanted to shake it loose from us. Reading a word takes a certain mental commitment from the reader that hearing someone simply say the word in your presence does not. When I read a word, even if someone else is saying it, I’m saying it in my own head somewhere. So the people who are really upset with this word may have encountered it that way, and that’s why it has taken on an especially horrific sense. They don’t want to ever say the word in their own mind.
As I think about, Lenny Bruce was on to something.
I know I can’t bear to read it or see it, although I must say all of these threads on Ricochet debating its use may have lessened some of that internal shock I used to feel at reading it elsewhere. :-)
So to virtue signal, must you have virtue to signal?
Moderator Note:
See mod note on comment 80Fake news!
No. It’s easy, because any number of euphemisms will work perfectly well to communicate exactly which word we mean — and that’s all that matters.
In the same way, we can discuss the wisdom (or not) of displaying pictures of Muhammad without actually showing pictures of Muhammad (though I do think that we should, from time to time, show pictures of Muhammad).
I think, when talking about this particular word (and see what I did there?), that we often run into a clash between what is and what should be.
It should be that we conservatives here on Ricochet can have a reasoned discussion about this particular word, using the word freely within the context of that discussion, and that every reader not a party to the discussion or to Ricochet will understand the dispassionate clinical nature of our discourse and appreciate that we aren’t trying to sneak a racist obscenity back into the popular lexicon. It should be true that that were the case.
But it isn’t. Instead, its use will reflect badly on us, will be taken out of context, will tarnish our reputations and fuel false narratives about conservatives in general. In my opinion, that’s too high a price to pay for the very small benefit of not having to use a euphemism when talking about a word most of us don’t want to use anyway.
Moderator Note:
Oh, for heaven's sake! Does *everyone* here want a moderator now? It's Friday, I was hoping to log off and go do something productive, and now I have to hold your hand too?Hey! Can he say that? Could I get a moderator here? I need a moderator!
Its one thing to defend someone against an unfair accusation (although Ron Paul’s newsletters have pretty damning evidence of racism in them, one of the reasons I’ve never been a Ron Paul fan nor have I defended him). It’s perfectly legitimate to argue that there’s no evidence this happened, That Omarossa is an attention seeking money grabber and that absent such evidence this kind of rank speculation is ridiculous. That is not the only argument currently advanced. Instead we have people saying it doesn’t matter if Trump said it even if such a tape comes out because X,Y,Z. That is an argument that will tar the GOP with a large part of the electorate. It will taint the good stuff Trump and the GOP have managed to accomplish. It will make it harder to govern conservatively. That is the point of the OP.