I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?

Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB https://t.co/hcDXh5zMZc
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned. https://t.co/3S8MFvrMcN
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
Stephens and folks like him tend to lean heavily on something called the "use-mention distinction," which is the principle that using a word yourself isn't the same as quoting someone else using it.
I find that distinction a useful one myself, but here's the thing that folks like Bret need to remember: IT'S NOT A MAGIC WAND.
There was no need for Stephens to use the n-word in his column (four times!). It didn't clarify anything, eliminate any ambiguity about his referent or intent.
It was gratuitous. And the gratuitous use of racial slurs is vile. To put it another way, the gratuitous use of racial slurs is USE. Not "mention," use.
The Times published the Atwater quote unredacted as recently as a year and a half ago, in a Krugman column. The difference? The quote was actually relevant to that column, which was about GOP racism. https://t.co/GtmqsztlBJ
Also, just to reiterate: The reporter at the center of the original scandal, Donald McNeil, WAS NOT FIRED. He was reprimanded privately, and quit when the story became public.
Would Don McNeil have been fired if he hadn't quit? We don't know. Why don't we know? BECAUSE HE QUIT.
I really hate it when people claim that folks who were criticized for doing or saying obnoxious things got fired in situations in which those people did not in fact get fired.
BTW, I should have used the word "uttered" rather than "used" in this tweet, given the discussion of the use/mention distinction later in the thread. The context of the utterance is a matter of some ambiguity. https://t.co/9pTh0S7JJu
This is really well said, and it reflects the evolution of my own views on the topic. https://t.co/fMhUZlzsT3

More from For later read

the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.


like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.

the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more

the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500

adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"

You May Also Like