I'm a fan of comedy and (prior to Covid) a fan of Joe's podcast, but he bombed so hard with that special. There was nothing new or unexpected...made me realize I have never really liked HIS stand-up, but that he has introduced me to a lot of great comedians through his show-- and that's why I associate him with good stand-up. Thank god I had old episodes of Stella on VHS so I was able to get some laughs out of my evening.
If it makes you feel any better, I heard of you before him. Kinda want to remix Black Coffee from that one episode.
Since projection is a thing, it's worth noting lazy rich white men used slaves to build this country, then started calling THEM a mean name that means "lazy".
thanks for another thoughtful piece! some of my favorite portions of it here:
"Words are never just words. They’re the entire edifice upon which our species civilized itself, but words are only half of the formula by which we communicate."
"I think it’s important to say that I’m not claiming Rogan is a racist or a homophobe. Nor am I claiming any particular member of his audience harbors those prejudices. What I am saying is that casually using dehumanizing language without making some larger point decrying the words offers moral license to others to do the same. It’s not that anybody’s going to walk out of a Joe Rogan show and start verbally assaulting people, it’s that the ecosystem in which Rogan thrives is predicated on the celebration of lunkhead cruelty as a reaction against what they deem to be language police"
"As many have pointed out, political correctness or whatever you want to call it, isn’t about restricting free expression. It’s about asking for respect."
there's a linguist i know named lauren squires who has expressed these thoughts that i think are super meaningful and right on:
"On 'political correctness':
'Politically correct' is essentially a smear term (or a dysphemism) used to delegitimize talk that is sensitive to social power and oppression. Almost no one who uses what the anti-PC crowd would call 'politically correct' language would themselves call that language 'politically correct.' No one says, in a positive and non-sarcastic way, 'Now let's make sure to be politically correct in how we talk about this.' (It's like 'hipster': no one actually calls themself one.) Calling language 'politically correct' is labeling it as somehow inauthentic or dishonest; being 'politically incorrect' has come to mean speaking truthfully, straightforwardly, 'calling it like it is.' But language that is typically labeled 'politically correct' is actually language meant to more accurately reflect the state of people in the world. It is not meant to 'protect' or 'coddle' minorities; it is meant to STOP protecting and coddling the majority, by preventing language that obscures real social injustice from going unexamined. The 'PC' label has been marshaled in a very clever way by those who wish to be able to continue using speech that denigrates minorities."
By this logic, we should begin referring to lynching as "the l-word" to ensure that no offense is possible, in a historical context or in our more-racist-than-ever modern reality. That is, the context by which we may never use The Forbidden Word includes discussion of the history and cultural meaning of the word, a point you make clear by admitting you "have no other choice" but to use the censored variation while also trying to claim that no one complaining of such censorship has any case to make. Carlin was right, and Lenny before him. The squishy liberal dogma on language has only empowered the lunkheaded likes of Rogan.
I disagree with this point. The reason I choose not to say that word is the reason I said in the piece - out of respect. The Black community has asked us not to use the word, so I don't use it. Exactly the same reason I wouldn't use a slur against Polish people or Asian people or any other people. I agree that lynching in this country has a terrible history inextricably entwined with race, but the word is not a slur. To say somebody was lynched is not to demean the person, the same way saying a n-r was lynched would. I'm sure you see the difference. From my point of view, there is no "squishy liberal dogma" on language because there's no dogma at all. What there is, and I would submit that this ought to apply to people from across the political spectrum, is an acknowledgement that some words cause unnecessary pain to people and so I avoid them when other words can achieve the same purpose. The reason the N word is so confounding - and the reason why I say I'm "forced" to use that odious phrase - is because there is no word that connotes the same level of cruelty and hatred towards Black people. So when that word is the word in question there's no alternative other than using the word and having that become the focus of what I'm trying to communicate or using the ungainly euphemism for the word. I choose to go with the ungainly euphemism to avoid any distracting implications.
And, again, it's not "censorship" except of the social kind. There are other words that are treated like this. For example, in the Jewish religion, Jews are forbidden to say the name of God. Why? Because no word can do justify to God, and so saying the name demeans God's greatness. Does that mean Jews are "censored"? No. It's how they show respect.
I'd say that's a pretty clear case of institutionalized censorship right there. And a pretty damning case against religion in general. "Here, let's learn a new word. NOW NEVER USE IT OR EVEN THINK OF IT!"
I'm sure respect as an end goal is what you have in mind, and is clearly the ideal. But we'd go a lot further in developing some understanding of the performative, anti-woke, anti-PC position of the world's Roganesque muscleheads if we can admit that the reason we are not, right now, able to actually type the very word we're trying to discuss is that we are both afraid of the predictable backlash, which will not come from black people but from angry, white liberals.
And that, I suggest, is a far bigger cultural problem than whether or not we can or should use that particular word. And the word for that problem, which we also cannot state without predictable backlash, is censorship.
You're right. It IS self-censorship. We self-censor all the time for exactly the reason you just described. As always, it's a choice. For example, there are words other people refuse to use (like "cunt") which I will occasionally use even though it may offend some people. And there are words which I don't use at all except in reference to them (like "faggot") which I am content to write out because it doesn't cause the same level of offense as the WORD WHICH SHALL NOT BE NAMED. Of COURSE I could write the word - and I quoted it in the piece - but I don't. It's the single word I never use because of its unique role in American history. Does it mean I would never say the word? Of course not. I have used it before - I even used it in a joke and suffered no consequences but I'm no longer comfortable doing so and so I do not.
And I agree that the progressive left are often ninnies looking for offense where none exists. And I agree that that IS a problem. Further, I agree that it's an attempt to control language which can have disastrous consequences. But for all of that, many of their efforts are largely wasted, ineffective, and condescending. At the SAME time, I think it's good to listen to what progressives have to say, just as its good to listen to what conservatives have to say about words like "cis" or "queer". We then make the best decisions we can about the language we choose to deploy.
Personally, I'm happy to err on the side of caution when trying to communicate ideas but I'm less worried about it when making jokes. As Carlin said, context is everything.
Many thanks for that measured and balanced appraisal of the problem. I think we're on the same page, for the most part.
Yes, context IS everything, which is why I bristle at the kneejerk response that insists that there can be NO context for this language which is appropriate, much less constructive. I've noted in recent years that some of the younger generations have a huge problem with, as one example, All in the Family - not because (as I might have guessed) they don't understand the satirical context, but because they objectively refuse that certain language and ideas can benefit from a satirical context - even and maybe especially WITH an anti-racism intent in those satirical messages. Because racists could laugh at the jokes AND agree with Archie Bunker's racist ideas, the satire, they say, did more harm than good.
I couldn't possibly disagree more with this. But that's likely because Archie Bunker's schtick spoke satisfactorily to my liberal prejudices. In considering how the white power contingent might view it, we have, perhaps, the same question that can be applied to Rogan's routine: Is his comedy actually HARMFUL - to individuals and/or to "the cause?"
But we have another, more immediate issue that instantly muddies the waters of that potentially very interesting debate. And that's the cancel culture problem. Those policing the language often claim cancel culture doesn't exist and that no one who's been accused, rightly or wrongly, of using unapproved words or voicing verboten opinions has ever lost a job, lost a book deal, lost a speaking engagement, had their life threatened, et al. But of course, these things have happened quite a lot, instigated by the same breed of keyboard warrior mobs who then say that these are only "consequences" for the victim's thought crimes.
And this is, naturally, the "woke mob" Rogan's fans insist they are standing their ground against. The same way my father used to argue that he didn't like censorship of the confederate flag - not because he was pro-confederacy, but because he "didn't like being told what to do." The problem with that argument being, of course, that he actually WAS pro-confederacy.
In either case, you've got the problem of censorship being resisted or excused as the main battleground, allowing discussion of whatever ideas might be at work, genuinely or performatively, to lie unexamined.
And this makes me crazy because I WANT to talk about Song of the South. I WANT to debate the ideas expressed there in the context of their times (in defiance of NAACP protests during its release, etc.), and I don't want the evidence of that racism erased (particularly when it's erased to protect the good name of the corporate entity responsible for producing the racist work in the first place).
The question being, when we work to erase "the n-word," are we not only enhancing the damage that word can inflict when hurled by a modern racist but also erasing the damage that word, and the racist intentions behind it, have inflicted historically. Are we being expected, in effect, to FORGET that the word ever existed? And if we forget that - out of "respect" - how easily can we then forget slavery ("the s-word"), Jim Crow, and the whole ugly history? (And that's what I imply with my "l-word" example.)
Our current cultural civil war is not about whose view of history and "patriotism" is correct, but who can censor faster and harder according to their religious dictates. Effectively, my fascism can beat up your fascism.
Michael, are you familiar with the "use-mention distinction"?
To USE a word like a slur is different than to MENTION it.
For some words, we'll mention them when discussing them (thoughtfully, hopefully) but not use them (harmfully). For some words, even mentioning them brings the possibility of causing harm, so what you're describing about which words you're willing to even mention (let alone use) in certain contexts makes a lot of sense.
I think Carlin is one of the five or so greatest stand - ups of all time, but I don't have a problem with disagreeing with him about this.
It would've been interesting to hear him discuss it with Richard Pryor, another of the five, who said this in his "Live on the Sunset Strip" concert film:
"More specifically: yes, you can say ‘blue’ in ancient Greek. More precisely, Greek has words for the area of the colour palette that English calls ‘blue’. But English ‘blue’ covers a huge region of the palette. Greek splits it into multiple smaller regions..."
Thank you, Michael! I am a Disabled artist and activist, and ableist language like "the R word," or "deformed," "crippled," "imbecile," etc are so much more than *just* words. Those are concepts (many of which were developed during the 19th century by leaders of Ellis Island or other immigration departments so they could deny entry to the US) that have been used to justify terrible things - involuntary institutionalization, forced sterilized, disenfranchisement, abuse, and neglect. These words have been used to classify people who don't align with "social norms" and then used to justify those people's marginalization. When comedians use those words, they involve the concept those words are undeniably attached to.
Thank you for this post! I'm a huge comedy nerd, and I hate the "you can't say anything anymore" gripe. Write smarter jokes, guys - lots of comedians are brilliant, witty, insightful and creative without punching down or using hurtful language for "shock value." 💜
Your last point is incredibly well put. The "you can't say 'x' anymore!" complaint just seems really lazy when there are plenty of comedians who are still telling funny jokes AND pushing the boundaries.
I do believe that if Carlin was alive today, he’d agree with you, Michael, 100%. Your post today is even a stronger confirmation that anyone who isn’t black should never use the n word. That should similarly apply to the c word as well; one of the nastiest disrespectful things one could say to a woman. Not funny.
Thanks, Michael. I can't believe next month will mark a year since our debate!
A couple years ago there was a different N-word controversy with Rogan. You may recall a mashup that went viral of clips from his podcast, where he said the word. I wrote about it for The Spectator.
This probably veers off into different territory -- i.e. of "licensing" or who gets the "the N word pass" -- but at the time Rogan (who publicly apologized) got a lot of support from Black people. This public statement from then-UFC champion Israel Adesanya still stands out to me. https://youtu.be/gZiUWMfTdbE?si=6rNW9u4kxPf7-tsr
The spirit of George Carlin wouldn’t make that joke, but the person might. George Carlin was an extremely incisive comedian who could see the absurd hypocrisy of the world around him. But that was a different world than the world we inhabit today. The man George Carlin very well might have said that joke fifty years ago, but he’s dead now. His spirit lives on in each of us who can see that hypocrisy, still, in our ever changing world and say “nah, George Carlin wouldn’t dig that”
I had the realization a few years ago that in the unending morass of euphemisms surrounding (what I think of as) our national sin, the term “racism” itself functions as a euphemism. Its very imprecision, at least colloquially, serves to aggravate the problem it seeks to describe. The solution, as always, is greater linguistic precision. What I settled on was the phrase “friend of black people.” It seems to at least clarify some of this “that is/is not racist” because it’s much simpler to judge behavior by whether one is acting as a friend. And I bet Carlin would stop saying that word because he wanted to be, or saw himself as, a friend to black people.
I'm a fan of comedy and (prior to Covid) a fan of Joe's podcast, but he bombed so hard with that special. There was nothing new or unexpected...made me realize I have never really liked HIS stand-up, but that he has introduced me to a lot of great comedians through his show-- and that's why I associate him with good stand-up. Thank god I had old episodes of Stella on VHS so I was able to get some laughs out of my evening.
Political correctness is about control. People get off on it.
KillTony audience is a cesspool
Is ‘the N word’ synecdoche or metonymy?
It might be, but I have no idea what those words mean.
Good on you for not googling. I wish I’d done the same when I got the letter telling me i was the subject of a lawsuit (not clothes)
If it makes you feel any better, I heard of you before him. Kinda want to remix Black Coffee from that one episode.
Since projection is a thing, it's worth noting lazy rich white men used slaves to build this country, then started calling THEM a mean name that means "lazy".
dear michael,
thanks for another thoughtful piece! some of my favorite portions of it here:
"Words are never just words. They’re the entire edifice upon which our species civilized itself, but words are only half of the formula by which we communicate."
"I think it’s important to say that I’m not claiming Rogan is a racist or a homophobe. Nor am I claiming any particular member of his audience harbors those prejudices. What I am saying is that casually using dehumanizing language without making some larger point decrying the words offers moral license to others to do the same. It’s not that anybody’s going to walk out of a Joe Rogan show and start verbally assaulting people, it’s that the ecosystem in which Rogan thrives is predicated on the celebration of lunkhead cruelty as a reaction against what they deem to be language police"
"As many have pointed out, political correctness or whatever you want to call it, isn’t about restricting free expression. It’s about asking for respect."
there's a linguist i know named lauren squires who has expressed these thoughts that i think are super meaningful and right on:
"On 'political correctness':
'Politically correct' is essentially a smear term (or a dysphemism) used to delegitimize talk that is sensitive to social power and oppression. Almost no one who uses what the anti-PC crowd would call 'politically correct' language would themselves call that language 'politically correct.' No one says, in a positive and non-sarcastic way, 'Now let's make sure to be politically correct in how we talk about this.' (It's like 'hipster': no one actually calls themself one.) Calling language 'politically correct' is labeling it as somehow inauthentic or dishonest; being 'politically incorrect' has come to mean speaking truthfully, straightforwardly, 'calling it like it is.' But language that is typically labeled 'politically correct' is actually language meant to more accurately reflect the state of people in the world. It is not meant to 'protect' or 'coddle' minorities; it is meant to STOP protecting and coddling the majority, by preventing language that obscures real social injustice from going unexamined. The 'PC' label has been marshaled in a very clever way by those who wish to be able to continue using speech that denigrates minorities."
thanks for sharing, as always!
much love
myq
I love that Lauren Squires quote! Accurate and incisive.
By this logic, we should begin referring to lynching as "the l-word" to ensure that no offense is possible, in a historical context or in our more-racist-than-ever modern reality. That is, the context by which we may never use The Forbidden Word includes discussion of the history and cultural meaning of the word, a point you make clear by admitting you "have no other choice" but to use the censored variation while also trying to claim that no one complaining of such censorship has any case to make. Carlin was right, and Lenny before him. The squishy liberal dogma on language has only empowered the lunkheaded likes of Rogan.
I disagree with this point. The reason I choose not to say that word is the reason I said in the piece - out of respect. The Black community has asked us not to use the word, so I don't use it. Exactly the same reason I wouldn't use a slur against Polish people or Asian people or any other people. I agree that lynching in this country has a terrible history inextricably entwined with race, but the word is not a slur. To say somebody was lynched is not to demean the person, the same way saying a n-r was lynched would. I'm sure you see the difference. From my point of view, there is no "squishy liberal dogma" on language because there's no dogma at all. What there is, and I would submit that this ought to apply to people from across the political spectrum, is an acknowledgement that some words cause unnecessary pain to people and so I avoid them when other words can achieve the same purpose. The reason the N word is so confounding - and the reason why I say I'm "forced" to use that odious phrase - is because there is no word that connotes the same level of cruelty and hatred towards Black people. So when that word is the word in question there's no alternative other than using the word and having that become the focus of what I'm trying to communicate or using the ungainly euphemism for the word. I choose to go with the ungainly euphemism to avoid any distracting implications.
And, again, it's not "censorship" except of the social kind. There are other words that are treated like this. For example, in the Jewish religion, Jews are forbidden to say the name of God. Why? Because no word can do justify to God, and so saying the name demeans God's greatness. Does that mean Jews are "censored"? No. It's how they show respect.
I'd say that's a pretty clear case of institutionalized censorship right there. And a pretty damning case against religion in general. "Here, let's learn a new word. NOW NEVER USE IT OR EVEN THINK OF IT!"
I'm sure respect as an end goal is what you have in mind, and is clearly the ideal. But we'd go a lot further in developing some understanding of the performative, anti-woke, anti-PC position of the world's Roganesque muscleheads if we can admit that the reason we are not, right now, able to actually type the very word we're trying to discuss is that we are both afraid of the predictable backlash, which will not come from black people but from angry, white liberals.
And that, I suggest, is a far bigger cultural problem than whether or not we can or should use that particular word. And the word for that problem, which we also cannot state without predictable backlash, is censorship.
You're right. It IS self-censorship. We self-censor all the time for exactly the reason you just described. As always, it's a choice. For example, there are words other people refuse to use (like "cunt") which I will occasionally use even though it may offend some people. And there are words which I don't use at all except in reference to them (like "faggot") which I am content to write out because it doesn't cause the same level of offense as the WORD WHICH SHALL NOT BE NAMED. Of COURSE I could write the word - and I quoted it in the piece - but I don't. It's the single word I never use because of its unique role in American history. Does it mean I would never say the word? Of course not. I have used it before - I even used it in a joke and suffered no consequences but I'm no longer comfortable doing so and so I do not.
And I agree that the progressive left are often ninnies looking for offense where none exists. And I agree that that IS a problem. Further, I agree that it's an attempt to control language which can have disastrous consequences. But for all of that, many of their efforts are largely wasted, ineffective, and condescending. At the SAME time, I think it's good to listen to what progressives have to say, just as its good to listen to what conservatives have to say about words like "cis" or "queer". We then make the best decisions we can about the language we choose to deploy.
Personally, I'm happy to err on the side of caution when trying to communicate ideas but I'm less worried about it when making jokes. As Carlin said, context is everything.
Many thanks for that measured and balanced appraisal of the problem. I think we're on the same page, for the most part.
Yes, context IS everything, which is why I bristle at the kneejerk response that insists that there can be NO context for this language which is appropriate, much less constructive. I've noted in recent years that some of the younger generations have a huge problem with, as one example, All in the Family - not because (as I might have guessed) they don't understand the satirical context, but because they objectively refuse that certain language and ideas can benefit from a satirical context - even and maybe especially WITH an anti-racism intent in those satirical messages. Because racists could laugh at the jokes AND agree with Archie Bunker's racist ideas, the satire, they say, did more harm than good.
I couldn't possibly disagree more with this. But that's likely because Archie Bunker's schtick spoke satisfactorily to my liberal prejudices. In considering how the white power contingent might view it, we have, perhaps, the same question that can be applied to Rogan's routine: Is his comedy actually HARMFUL - to individuals and/or to "the cause?"
But we have another, more immediate issue that instantly muddies the waters of that potentially very interesting debate. And that's the cancel culture problem. Those policing the language often claim cancel culture doesn't exist and that no one who's been accused, rightly or wrongly, of using unapproved words or voicing verboten opinions has ever lost a job, lost a book deal, lost a speaking engagement, had their life threatened, et al. But of course, these things have happened quite a lot, instigated by the same breed of keyboard warrior mobs who then say that these are only "consequences" for the victim's thought crimes.
And this is, naturally, the "woke mob" Rogan's fans insist they are standing their ground against. The same way my father used to argue that he didn't like censorship of the confederate flag - not because he was pro-confederacy, but because he "didn't like being told what to do." The problem with that argument being, of course, that he actually WAS pro-confederacy.
In either case, you've got the problem of censorship being resisted or excused as the main battleground, allowing discussion of whatever ideas might be at work, genuinely or performatively, to lie unexamined.
And this makes me crazy because I WANT to talk about Song of the South. I WANT to debate the ideas expressed there in the context of their times (in defiance of NAACP protests during its release, etc.), and I don't want the evidence of that racism erased (particularly when it's erased to protect the good name of the corporate entity responsible for producing the racist work in the first place).
The question being, when we work to erase "the n-word," are we not only enhancing the damage that word can inflict when hurled by a modern racist but also erasing the damage that word, and the racist intentions behind it, have inflicted historically. Are we being expected, in effect, to FORGET that the word ever existed? And if we forget that - out of "respect" - how easily can we then forget slavery ("the s-word"), Jim Crow, and the whole ugly history? (And that's what I imply with my "l-word" example.)
Our current cultural civil war is not about whose view of history and "patriotism" is correct, but who can censor faster and harder according to their religious dictates. Effectively, my fascism can beat up your fascism.
Michael, are you familiar with the "use-mention distinction"?
To USE a word like a slur is different than to MENTION it.
For some words, we'll mention them when discussing them (thoughtfully, hopefully) but not use them (harmfully). For some words, even mentioning them brings the possibility of causing harm, so what you're describing about which words you're willing to even mention (let alone use) in certain contexts makes a lot of sense.
Thanks again for sharing!
I was NOT familiar with this distinction, although clearly I'm already using it.
And now you can also mention it!
Except he did use that word. Making the rest of this whine fest meaningless.
These same "free speech warriors" get bent out of shape about language all the time, so it's rich when they say things like "it's just words!"
Cis is just a word. Racist is just a word. No, I don't think they tolerate "just words" being aimed at them.
Great point.
I think Carlin is one of the five or so greatest stand - ups of all time, but I don't have a problem with disagreeing with him about this.
It would've been interesting to hear him discuss it with Richard Pryor, another of the five, who said this in his "Live on the Sunset Strip" concert film:
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxouP_hEWQU6IMRuJZNF4kGtqYjXmqFDaB?si=CiyqHsM52roSxySL
There has been some pushback on the idea that the Greeks didn't a word for, or a "concept" of the color blue: https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2020/05/ancient-greek-colours.html
"More specifically: yes, you can say ‘blue’ in ancient Greek. More precisely, Greek has words for the area of the colour palette that English calls ‘blue’. But English ‘blue’ covers a huge region of the palette. Greek splits it into multiple smaller regions..."
Thank you, Michael! I am a Disabled artist and activist, and ableist language like "the R word," or "deformed," "crippled," "imbecile," etc are so much more than *just* words. Those are concepts (many of which were developed during the 19th century by leaders of Ellis Island or other immigration departments so they could deny entry to the US) that have been used to justify terrible things - involuntary institutionalization, forced sterilized, disenfranchisement, abuse, and neglect. These words have been used to classify people who don't align with "social norms" and then used to justify those people's marginalization. When comedians use those words, they involve the concept those words are undeniably attached to.
Thank you for this post! I'm a huge comedy nerd, and I hate the "you can't say anything anymore" gripe. Write smarter jokes, guys - lots of comedians are brilliant, witty, insightful and creative without punching down or using hurtful language for "shock value." 💜
Your last point is incredibly well put. The "you can't say 'x' anymore!" complaint just seems really lazy when there are plenty of comedians who are still telling funny jokes AND pushing the boundaries.
I do believe that if Carlin was alive today, he’d agree with you, Michael, 100%. Your post today is even a stronger confirmation that anyone who isn’t black should never use the n word. That should similarly apply to the c word as well; one of the nastiest disrespectful things one could say to a woman. Not funny.
Thanks, Michael. I can't believe next month will mark a year since our debate!
A couple years ago there was a different N-word controversy with Rogan. You may recall a mashup that went viral of clips from his podcast, where he said the word. I wrote about it for The Spectator.
This probably veers off into different territory -- i.e. of "licensing" or who gets the "the N word pass" -- but at the time Rogan (who publicly apologized) got a lot of support from Black people. This public statement from then-UFC champion Israel Adesanya still stands out to me. https://youtu.be/gZiUWMfTdbE?si=6rNW9u4kxPf7-tsr
The spirit of George Carlin wouldn’t make that joke, but the person might. George Carlin was an extremely incisive comedian who could see the absurd hypocrisy of the world around him. But that was a different world than the world we inhabit today. The man George Carlin very well might have said that joke fifty years ago, but he’s dead now. His spirit lives on in each of us who can see that hypocrisy, still, in our ever changing world and say “nah, George Carlin wouldn’t dig that”
I had the realization a few years ago that in the unending morass of euphemisms surrounding (what I think of as) our national sin, the term “racism” itself functions as a euphemism. Its very imprecision, at least colloquially, serves to aggravate the problem it seeks to describe. The solution, as always, is greater linguistic precision. What I settled on was the phrase “friend of black people.” It seems to at least clarify some of this “that is/is not racist” because it’s much simpler to judge behavior by whether one is acting as a friend. And I bet Carlin would stop saying that word because he wanted to be, or saw himself as, a friend to black people.